📜

Re-Define Intent Alignment?

📅 2021

policy development

🔵 Rare

#ai #inner alignment

📖 Description

I think Evan's [Clarifying Inner Alignment Terminology](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/SzecSPYxqRa5GCaSF/clarifying-inner-alignment-terminology) is quite clever; more well-optimized than it may at first appear. However, do think there are a couple of things which don't work as well as they could:

📊 Game Impacts

Variable	Change	Condition
Research	+5	Always
Vibey Doom	+5	Always
Ethics Risk	-5	Always

💭 Reactions

🔬 Safety Researcher Reaction: ⚠️ Placeholder - Needs Real Quote
"This is a significant contribution to alignment research"

📰 Media Reaction: ⚠️ Placeholder - Needs Real Quote
"Discussed in AI safety community"

💡 Found a Real Quote? Suggest it here

🔗 Sources

[1] https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/7fkaJLzRiEr2hmSDi/re-define-intent-alignment

🏷️ Event Metadata

Think this event's metadata could be improved? Category and tags describe the real-world event and are maintained in pdoom-data. Rarity, game impacts and p(doom) effects are game-mechanical values owned by pdoom1. Each link below goes to the repository that decides that field.

📁 Category Policy Development → Suggest different category

⭐ Rarity 🔵 Rare → Suggest different rarity

🏷️ Tags (2) ai, inner alignment → Suggest tag changes

📊 Game Impacts (3) 3 variable changes → Suggest impact changes

☢️ p(Doom) Impact No direct impact → Suggest p(doom) change

📝 General Metadata Year, description, reactions → Comprehensive review

🤝 Found an Issue?

This event data is sourced from the pdoom-data repository. If you notice errors or want to suggest improvements:

GitHub Issue (Preferred) 📧 Email (No GitHub)

← Back to All Events