Not totally following your last point, though I do totally agree that there is this historical drift from “AI alignment” referring to existential risk, to today, where any AI personality you don’t like is “unaligned.”

Still, “AI existential risk” is practically a different beast from “AI alignment,” and I’m trying to argue that the latter is not just for experts, but that it’s mostly a sociopolitical question of selection.

What I understand from what GP was saying, is that AI Alignment today is more akin to trying to analyze and reduce error in an already fitted linear regressor rather than aligning AI behaviour and values to expected ones.

Perhaps that has to do with the fact that aligning LLM-based AI systems has become a pseudo predictable engineering problem solvable via a "target, measure and reiterate cycle" rather than the highly philosophical and moral task old AI Alignment researchers thought it would be.

> historical drift from “AI alignment” referring to existential risk, to today, where any AI personality you don’t like is “unaligned.”

Alignment has always been "what it actually does doesn't match what it's meant to do".

When the crowd that believes that AI will inevitably become an all-powerful God owned the news cycle, alignment concerns were of course presented through that lens. But it's actually rather interesting if approached seriously, especially when different people have different ideas about what it's meant to do.