Can you explain how the above event doesn't count as evidence alignment is an actual risk?

What would compelling evidence look like to you?

> Because we continue to have zero evidence that aligment is an actual risk.

I disagree. Every time one of these LLMs -say- interprets an attacker's instructions as either its system instructions or those of its user, interprets its own internal chatter as a user's command to perform a destructive operation on that user's data [0], burns all of the user's budget from getting stuck in an incredibly stupid loop, massively overbills the user because it can't reliably report which system the user is using [1], encourages a user to swap their usual cooking salt for sodium bromide, etc, etc, etc, that's a harmful alignment failure.

These are real harms happening right now due to alignment failures. They're just not harms to the future of the entire species... what doomers call "existential risks", or "x-risks". You'd think that the fact that these machines are so amazingly unreliable would be a large part of the "x-risk" conversation, but... well, it makes sense that folks like writing speculative science fiction much more than they like doing investigative reporting.

[0] This general problem happens a lot, but I'm specifically thinking of that one where the Claude LLM's internal chatter lead it to believe that the task it just started was done, so it instructed the Cloud Provider to destroy the mess of "AI"-GPU-attached VMs... along with a bunch of very-expensive-to-produce data from the in-progress run.

[1] <https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/73597>

It really hinges on what you consider alignment and risk. For the widest definitions of alignment, we have never had an aligned model - One that will refuse to break the law or work against another persons interests.

Use to discover exploits, hack, or simply aid terrorist groups with mundane information are already risks manifest.

This is why many argue that alignment is impossible. You cant have LLMs that are both useful tools and safe as milk.

[Edit] It seems like you are operating under the assumption that alignment is synonymous with obedience. This is not a common convention and one of the problems that plague the discourse

I'd say that AIs occasionally "going crazy" and calling for death to human is evidence that these things might "mis-align" on occasion. And I say that knowing that most of these events are just these thing parroting bad sci-fi plots (or posts by people worried about alignment). That's true but everything they do is "just parroting" right?

Lol this has to be a troll, I've never seen something so wildly, obviously, incredibly wrong.

You can debate all you want if alignment is possible. That is a valid discussion. But it's trivial to demonstrate that alignment is a problem.

Until it deletes your home directory, which i'd argue is an alignment problem. Destorying my data is not in line with my priorities.

Thank you.

We have wasted so much time and energy building up what has effectively become a marketing stunt.

Eliezer Yudkowsky was perhaps the best thing to happen to OpenAI's and Anthropic's fundraising flywheel.

Alignment is a mitigation and a poor one. The risk is non- determinism.