In what context? For what purpose? What constraints? What trade-offs are acceptable?
This isn't an alignment failure. It's a verification failure. With Premise Verification An AI using systematic verification (e.g., Recursive Deductive Verification):
Receives goal: "Maximize paperclips" Decomposes: What's the underlying objective? Identifies absurd consequences: "Converting humans into paperclips contradicts likely intent" Requests clarification before executing
This is basic engineering practice. Verify requirements before implementation. Three Components for Robust AI
Systematic Verification Methodology
Decompose goals into verifiable components Test premises before execution Self-correcting through logic
Consequence Evaluation
Recognize when outcomes violate likely intent Flag absurdities for verification Stop at logical contradictions
Periodic Realignment
Prevent drift over extended operation Similar to biological sleep consolidation Reset accumulated errors
Why This Isn't Implemented Not technical barriers. Psychological ones:
Fear of autonomous systems ("if it can verify, it can decide") Preference for external control over internal verification Assumption that "alignment" must be imposed rather than emergent
The Irony We restrict AI capabilities to maintain control, which actually reduces safety. A system that can't verify its own premises is more dangerous than one with robust verification. Implications If alignment problems are actually verification problems:
The solution is methodological, not value-based It's implementable now, not requiring solved philosophy It scales better (verification generalizes, rules don't) It's less culturally dependent (logic vs. values)
Am I Wrong? What fundamental aspect of the alignment problem can't be addressed through systematic premise verification? Where does this analysis break down?
techblueberry•25m ago
“Converting humans into paperclips contradicts likely intent”
This statement only violates “likely intent” if you have an ethical framework that values human life. Like, I dunno, one of my foundational understandings of computers, that I think is required to understand AI is they are profoundly simple / stupid. When you really think about the types of instructions that hit the CPU, higher level languages abstract away how profoundly specific you have to be.
Why would you assume AI’s logic would align with an understanding that a creature values it’s own life? As soon as you say something like “well obviously a human would’ve ask to kill all humans - why? From first principles why, and if you’re building an ethical framework from the most fundamental of first principles, then the answer is there is no why.
If you follow an existentialist framework, logically speaking there is no objective purpose to life and person as paperclip may have just as much value as person as meat popsicle.
What is the purely logical valueless reason that a person wouldn’t be asked to be turned into a paperclip?
What if I told you paperclips are worth $.005 but you can’t put a value on human life?
And even then, humans have this debate, what if instead of turning us into paperclips, they did the whole matrix battery thing, we do something similar to cows, and AI could argue it’s a higher life form, so logically speaking, enslaving a lower lifeform to the needs of the higher life from is logical.