✳flâneur — a map of the web's best reading

Rant on Problem Factorization for Alignment — LessWrong

lesswrong.com · 3,024 words · saved by 1 readers

If you look at the economic theories (mostly based on game theory today) that try to explain why economies are organized the way they are, and where market inefficiencies come from, they all have a fundamental dependence on the assumption of different participants having different interests/values. In other words, if you removed that assumption from the theoretical models and replaced it with the opposite assumption, they would collapse in the sense that all or most of the inefficiencies ("transaction costs") would go away... ...With existing human institutions, a big part of the problem has to be that every participant has an incentive to distort the credit assignment (i.e., cause more credit to be assigned to oneself). (This is what I conclude from economic theory and also fits with my experience and common sense.) I'm going to jump in briefly to respond on one line of reasoning. John says the following, and I'd like to just give two examples from my own life of it. Now, the way econ

x "Why Not Just..." Factored Cognition Debate (AI safety technique) Humans consulting HCH Ought AI Frontpage 112 Rant on Problem Factorization for Alignment by johnswentworth 5th Aug 2022 AI Alignment Forum 8 min read 53 112 Ω 45 This post is the second in what is likely to become a series of uncharitable rants about alignment proposals (previously: Godzilla Strategies ). In general, these posts are intended to convey my underlying intuitions. They are not intended to convey my all-things-considered, reflectively-endorsed opinions. In particular, my all-things-considered reflectively-endorsed

Explore this link on the map →

related reading