Alignment is a completely incoherent concept. Humans do not agree on what values are correct. Why is it possible even in principle for an AI to crystallize any set of principles we all agree on?
There might be a few humans that don't agree with even those values, but I think it's safe to presume that the general-consensus values of humanity include the above points. And AI alignment is not even close to far enough along to provide even the slightest assurances about those points.
Practically everyone making the argument that AGI is about to destroy humanity is (a) human and (b) working on AI. It's safe to conclude they're either stupid and suicidal or don't buy their own bunk.
But ultimately, most people who think we stand a decent chance of dying because of this are not working at AI labs.
Do humans agree on the best way to do this? Aside from the most banal examples of what not to do, is there agreement on e.g. whether a mass extinction event is happening, not happening, or happening but actually tolerable?
If the answer is no, then it is not possible for an AI to align with human values on this question. But this is a human problem, not a technical one. Solving it through technical means is not possible.
So, at a very basic level: stop training AIs at that scale!
Sure AI could be worse than we are; makes for a good movie plot. But it could be a lot better than we are and it's sad that it's such a low bar to it to exceed.
So for example if a family with 5 children is on vacation, do you maintain that it is impossible even in principle for the parents to take the preferences of all 5 children into account in approximately equal measure as to what activities or non-activities to pursue?
Also: are you pursuing a complete tangent or do you see your point as bearing on whether frontier AI research should be banned? (If so, I cannot tell whether you consider your point to support a ban or oppose a ban.)
Therefore the actual solution is not coming up with more and more clever “guardrails” but aligning corporations and governments to human needs. In other words, politics.
There are other problems like enabling new types of scams which will require political solutions. At a technical level the best these companies can do is mitigation.
Don't extrapolate from present harms to future harms, here. The problem AI alignment is trying to solve at a most basic level is "don't kill everyone", and even that much isn't solved yet. Solving that (or, rather, buying time to solve it) will require political solutions, in the sense of international diplomacy. But it has absolutely nothing to do with "aligning corporations", and everything to do with teaching computers things on par with (oversimplifying here) "humans are made up of atoms, and if you repurpose those atoms the humans die, don't ever do that".
No, its not. AI alignment was an active area of concern (and the fundamental problem for useful AI with significant autonomy) before cultists started trying to reduce the scope of its problem space from the wide scope of real problems it concerns to a single speculative apocalypse.
But the genesis of the term "alignment" (as applied to AI) is a side issue. What is important is that reinforcement learning with human feedback and the other techniques used on the current crop of AIs to make it less likely that the AI will say things that embarass the owner of the AI are fundamentally different from making sure the an AI that turns out more capable than us will not kill us all or do something else awful.
Both, of course, are concerned primarily with the risk of human extinction from AI.
The fact that the number of things that could hypothetically lead to human extinction is entirely unbounded and (since we’re not extrapolating from present harms) unpredictable is a very convenient fact for people who are paid for their time in “solving” this problem.