From a 'real alignment' perspective (how to get the AI to want to do good things and not bad things), I think there are some obvious implications for the future of RLAIF.
You might think of the label 'RLAIF' as standing in for the general strategy of leveraging unsupervised data about human behavior to point the AI towards human preferences, using a scaffold that solicits the AI's predictions (or more general generative output, if the training isn't for pure prediction) about human preference-laden behaviors, and then transforms those predictions into some sort of supervisory signal.
Similarly, the AZR setup leverages the AI's unsupervised knowledge of code-quality-laden behaviors, using a scaffold that turns them back into a reward signal that lets the AI quote-unquote "train itself" to code better. Except that relative to vanilla RLAIF, there's more of an emphasis on generating and solving specific problems that form a curriculum for the agent, rather than just responding well to samples from the training distribution. But now that I've described things in this way, you can probably see how to turn this back into RLAIF for alignment.
The overarching problem is, as usual, we don't understand how to do alignment in a non-hacky way.
We don't know what sorts of moral reflection are necessary for good outcomes, and we don't know where human feedback is a necessary ingredient to keep AI meta-ethical evolution grounded to human preferences. But hey, if we try various value learning schemes empirically maybe we'll learn some things.
Question for the alignment crowd:
The new Absolute Zero Reasoner paper proposes a "self‑play RL with zero external data" paradigm, where the same model both invents tasks and learns to solve them. It reaches SOTA coding + math scores without ever touching a human‑curated dataset. But the authors also flag a few "uh‑oh moments": e.g. their 8‑B Llama variant generated a chain‑of‑thought urging it to "outsmart … intelligent machines and less intelligent humans," and they explicitly list "lingering safety concerns" as an open problem, noting that the system "still necessitates oversight."
My question: How should alignment researchers think about a learner that autonomously expands its own task distribution? Traditional RLHF/RLAIF assumes a fixed environment and lets us shape rewards; here the environment (the task generator) is part of the agent. Do existing alignment proposals—e.g. approval‑based amplification, debate, verifier‑game setups—scale to this recursive setting, or do we need new machinery (e.g. meta‑level corrigibility constraints on the proposer)? I’d love pointers to prior work or fresh ideas on how to keep a self‑improving task‑designer and task‑solver pointed in the right direction before capabilities sprint ahead of oversight.