> The entire "alignment" argument always assumes that there's an objectively correct value set to align to, which is always conveniently exactly the same as the values of whoever is telling you how important alignment is.

No, it doesn’t.

Many of them are (unfortunately) moral relativists. However, that doesn’t mean their goals are to make the models match their personal moral standards.

While there is a lot of disagreement about what is right and wrong, there is also a lot of widespread agreement.

If we could guarantee that on every moral issue on which there is currently widespread agreement (… and which there would continue to be widespread agreement if everyone thought faster with larger working memories and spent time thinking about moral philosophy) that any future powerful AI models would comport with the common view on that issue, then alignment would be considered solved (well, assuming the way this is achieved isn’t be causing people’s moral views to change).

Do companies try to restrict models in more ways than this? Sure, like you gave the example of about Taiwan. And also other things that would get the companies bad press.