Where I agree and disagree with Eliezer
paulfchristianoDate not recordedOriginal︎ ↗Archived copy
Examinations
None recorded. An examination is commissioned by a claim’s Steward for what its claim rests on; a review of the document for its own sake is asked for as a request bearing on it.
Text717 passages · 1 marked
Eliezer seems to argue that humans couldn’t verify pivotal acts proposed by AI systems (e.g. contributions to alignment research), and that this further makes it difficult to safely perform pivotal acts. In addition to disliking his concept of pivotal acts, I think that this claim is probably wrong and clearly overconfident. I think it doesn’t match well with pragmatic experience in R&D in almost any domain, where verification is much, much easier than generation in virtually every domain.
Not yet read by this claim’s Steward.
Lineage across 1 claim
Record
- Kind
- unknown
- Authors
- paulfchristiano
- Publisher
- Not recorded
- Published
- Not recorded
- DOI
- None
- Link
- https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CoZhXrhpQxpy9xw9y/where-i-agree-and-disagree-with-eliezer
- Archived copy
- https://web.archive.org/web/20261026081805/https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CoZhXrhpQxpy9xw9y/where-i-agree-and-disagree-with-eliezer
- Stored text
- 182,527 characters, retrieved Nov 11, 2026 · 508 sections, 717 passages
- Claims extracted
- Not recorded
- Versions
- One known
- Copies
- None recorded
- Corrections
- None recorded
- Facts checked
- Nov 11, 2026
History 3
- Nov 11, 2026DividedSegmenter · Divided into 1224 parts by its own structure
- Nov 11, 2026FactsFacts fetcher · Facts looked up
- Nov 11, 2026Entered the graphEntered the graph; copy stored