This post is a not a so secret analogy for the AI Alignment problem. Via a fictional dialog, Eliezer explores and counters common questions to the Rocket Alignment Problem as approached by the Mathematics of Intentional Rocketry Institute.
MIRI researchers will tell you they're worried that "right now, nobody can tell you how to point your rocket’s nose such that it goes to the moon, nor indeed any prespecified celestial destination."
Summary: One area we plan to explore at Resolution is personas and character training, operationalized as finding and controlling low-dimensional structure in models that emerges in pretraining and flows through post-training to superintelligence. The hope is to expand and systematize phenomena such as emergent misalignment, subliminal learning, and other empirical persona research, then intervene on this structure without accidentally hiding undesirable behavior elsewhere. If this approach resonates with you, consider working with us.
Our understanding of AI training and alignment as a field is very poor. If sufficient alignment of superintelligent AI agents requires pinning down the precise meaning of alignment and turning that meaning into high-accuracy training data and algorithms, we are likely to fail. Modern LLMs have trillions of parameters: our understanding...
For the past year, we at the AI Futures Project have been sinking most of our time into our next big scenario. Now it’s done!
It’s called AI 2040: Plan A.
It’s called Plan A because it’s a recommendation, not a prediction. It’s what we think should happen, not what will happen, though we think it’s plausible enough to aim for.
It’s called AI 2040 because in it, they delay the creation of superintelligence to 2040. It would have happened much sooner (in 2030, to be precise) if not for decisive action on the part of the US and Chinese governments.
As with AI 2027, summaries don’t really do it justice, since the whole point was to be detailed and comprehensive and work things out step by step rather than rely on high-level abstractions like doom or utopia.
Read the scenario at ai-2040.com. You can...
I just noticed this part of plan S.
Chip fabs are allowed to keep scaling up, but in a slow and highly regulated fashion, and besides, there isn’t as much demand now that AI capabilities are frozen.
This seems like a mistake. Whether plan S is good or bad will depend on if the conditions for AI development are better or worse when it finally ends. If fabs are allowed to scale up and research on how to make cheaper and more efficient chips is allowed to continue, then we'll plausibly have much more compute and a much faster takeoff when plan S eventually ends...
Preface for LessWrong: When I think back on my most cherished memories of this community, I return to those honoring defiance in pursuit of goodness:
I cannot return to you and say “I defied and then I won.” But I’m at least here to say “I defied.”
I recommend reading this article on my website since the embeds and typography work better there: click here.
In January, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officers...
Realized I made a prediction on Jan. 1 about whether I'd leave GDM in 2026:

My Fatebook question (shared with permission from Peter).
When we get explicit strong generalisation to work (see the first post on the matter and the second) my dream would be to create pre-aligned generalising AIs.
Think about the usual conflict between alignment and capabilities, between doing the right thing and doing the easy thing. The standard narrative puts the good people at a constant disadvantage: they have to carefully plan every AI advance, always on the lookout for potential dangers. While those who don’t care can just YOLO and let it rip and let their AIs get ever more powerful without taking any responsibility.
Now, in reality, there is some nuance to the story; but I don’t want to nuance it, I want to turn it on its head. I want to create AIs so that the...
We hand coded weights for one layer MLPs that memorises labels for input token sequences of length two. The number of facts our hand-coded models can memorise with 90% accuracy[1]scales roughly linearly with the models' parameter count[2], just like trained models for the same architecture. However, our hand-coded models' scaling prefactor still falls short of trained models' by a factor of

Figure 0: Max number of facts each model can learn when requiring 90% accuracy on evaluation. The fitted lines are best fit for
We pose a challenge to the community: Find better...
Cool challenge! I ran some experiments on bilinear layers ie
A couple notes:
This is an amazing review and IMO really compelling direction. So to speak.
One thing I constantly wonder, that possibly you could shed light on via this research program, is how well experiments on small models transfer to large ones. We know from pre training work that frequently ideas that work well at a small scale stop working once you scale up.
I think this might be relevant here in two ways. First, a bunch of the persona research is on small models, presumably due to accessibility reasons. But second, you might find a low dimension personality vector... (read more)