davidad @davidad
— reposted by Eric Schmidt
🔁 Eric Schmidt 🇺🇦 reposted
davidad 🌟✓ @davidad · Jan 15
Replying to @davidmanheim and @gcolbourn
To me, the idea of a ~good + coherent view that also endorses strategies that result in mass human casualties, whether as collateral damage or not, is incoherent. I recognize this is a strong normative stance, but I also predict that sufficiently reflective AIs will agree with it
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
davidad argues that a coherent "good" value system cannot endorse mass-casualty strategies even as collateral damage, and predicts sufficiently reflective AIs will converge on this — reposted by Eric Schmidt. Directly relevant to Nathan's AI safety/alignment interests, particularly the question of whether reflective AI systems converge on stable moral views (echoes the "agent is Good" abstraction thread from the earlier davidad screenshot in this same batch).
ai-safetyalignmentdavidadmoral-coherencereflective-equilibriumeric-schmidttwittervalue-convergence