Comment by nextaccountic
3 days ago
> Second, for critical decisions, there are useful lessons here that we can take to building with decision models. Knowing these models’ decisionmaking is inconsistently aligned with human preferences tells us we can’t just trust their decisions out of the box.
This specific model is unaligned, this doesn't say anything about decision models in general.
The more troubling statement is to assert that alignment is at all possible, not just theoretically but also in practice, which is something that is assumed by most players but has never been demonstrated in practice. Current models are not aligned and if it depends on them, people will die
If it doesn't depend on them, people will also die. That's one of the few certain point in life, eventually people will die.
Now obviously here the point was that putting LLM in charge of more life depending decisions will result in people dying more prematurely.
But we indeed can ask, how will it compare to bare human only decisions. And even with LLMs actually and still humans in the loop. The thing is that we know the LLMs can be tweaked to maximise this or that outcome, and reinforce or inhibit this or that biases.
We don't need to blame anyone specifically, or even any specific group. Yet we, as species, do have huge tendency to scapegoat, be it some individual or some group.
Unfortunately it didn't wait that we had contemporary technologies to organize genocides at scale.
Don't fear the tool, have the courage to recognize where there are plan to commit odious actions and where they are employed for the greatest good of humanity as a whole. Yes there can be grey areas, lot of them, but also people that obviously lost there path far away from pondering empathy with the due high weight in important decision in which they are significantly influencing outcomes.