Hacker News Reader

Comment by denimnerd42 | Hacker News Reader

the alignment issue has become huge in recent months. the tool should do what I want it to do and not be aligned against me.

View on HN

But other users are not aligned to me, other people are the worst and potentially highly dangerous. Im serious, not sarcasm.

Let's say you're facing an average psycho, who is intent on mass murder - the more the better.

Would you rather them have:

a) guns

b) psycho-aligned next-gen AI

Obviously (a).

> Would you rather them have:

As an American... I suspect that regardless of what I want they will have virtually unlimited access to both now that the tech industry understands how the lobbying game works.

False dichotomy, there's no reason not to have controls on both.

Given the choice between them having access to guns and nuclear waste my answer is also "neither".

The question was meant to illustrate the actual danger of always-user-aligned AI, not to vote for which one we get to keep.

So many here get so worried about guns, but don't think twice about how dangerous AI can be.

Hegseth already has both A and B. Anthropic already answered this, the answer to this choice is a resounding yes

I’d rather the psycho have a brain implant that physically prevents him from murder, but I wouldn’t trust such an implant myself fearing abuse or malfunction.

I’d change my mind if the AI was really smart or controlled an agile, dangerous robot. But current-gen AI I’d choose for them over a gun. We’re ruled by psychos (of a lesser degree), the road starting directly towards perfect safety is a dead end, meanwhile I want an LLM aligned to myself.

Which is why we need to restrict what is allowed on the internet. Anything the government deems too dangerous needs to be removed so as to not align with mass murderers.

Right. No good answer, AFAICT. Just a bad problem.

Hard to find a solution that's not worse than the problem itself - same as other weapons, IMO.

Here's a thought experiment: consider the person that you disagree with the most (politically, religiously, socially, whatever). Would you want _that_ person to have an AI chatbot aligned to them and their views?

there will be millions/billions of people utilizing llms against me supplied by adversary nation states. why do I have to get the shit version if I want to follow the rules? same reason I support the second amendment. why do I have to be the unarmed one? I wont even be able to protect myself from unaligned AIs if I only have one thats been corporately aligned.

Counter thought experiment: consider everyone you can name who has access to AI aligned to them and their views; how many of them would you trust to hold your wallet, never mind trust with anything important? Consider Altman, Musk, Trump, Thiel, etc.

The competing access needs problem here, is what if you want to do things that are un-alligned with the interests of your neighbors, your society, your government's laws, the AI company, etc.

Maybe you want to do piracy. Should AI help you do felonies?

yes, just like anything else I have access to can help me do felonies

Reply on news.ycombinator.com