Before solving alignment on AI we must solve alignment of the oligarchs.
The discussion questions whether AI alignment can be achieved without first addressing the alignment of oligarchs. It uses a parable of a man wishing for his own detriment to prevent his neighbor from gaining more, illustrating a distrust that powerful individuals' definition of "alignment" might simply mean obedience to them. The core concern is how a definition of alignment benefiting everyone can be agreed upon when self-interest and a desire to prevent others' success are prevalent.
Time & source
Times shown in UTC
Display time zone: UTC
Local time zone unavailable; showing UTC.
PublishedOffset at this time: UTC+0Sep 11, 2026, 22:03 UTC
IngestedOffset at this time: UTC+0Sep 12, 2026, 13:01 UTC
- Published
- Sep 11, 2026, 22:03
- Ingested
- Sep 12, 2026, 13:01
- Source type
- Dev community
- Tier
- Community
- Source status
- Healthy
Tier is a per-source editorial setting, not a per-item score.
A man finds a magic lamp with a djinn inside. The djinn says "you can wish for anything you want. But whatever you wish for, your neighbor gets twice as much". After thinking for a while the man says "take out one of my eyes".
How are we supposed to trust that their version of alignment doesn't just mean "obey me, personally" and not use their massive leverage over everybody else?
Come to think of it, unaligned ASI has better odds of doing the right thing for everyone compared to a random person.
Nobody else wants you to succeed. Certainly not more than them. So how are we supposed to think people agree upon a definition of alignment that includes the well being of all of us and not just a few?