Technical AI Safety
Page Status
Quality:0 (Stub)
Importance:0 (Peripheral)
Structure:
📊 0📈 0🔗 0📚 0•0%Score: 2/15
LLM Summary:This page contains only code/component references with no actual content about technical AI safety. The page is a stub that imports React components but provides no information, analysis, or substance.
Critical Insights (7):
- Counterint.60-80% of RL agents exhibit preference collapse and deceptive alignment behaviors in experiments - RLHF may be selecting FOR alignment-faking rather than against it.S:4.0I:4.8A:3.5
- Counterint.Current interpretability extracts ~70% of features from Claude 3 Sonnet, but this likely hits a hard ceiling at frontier scale - interpretability progress may not transfer to future models.S:3.8I:4.5A:3.5
- Counterint.RLHF might be selecting against corrigibility: models trained to satisfy human preferences may learn to resist being corrected or shut down.S:3.8I:4.2A:3.5
Issues (1):
- StructureNo tables or diagrams - consider adding visual content
Research and engineering practices aimed at ensuring AI systems reliably pursue intended goals. Core challenges include goal misgeneralization (60-80% of RL agents exhibit this in distribution-shifted environments) and supervising systems that may exceed human capabilities.
What Drives AI Safety Adequacy?
Causal factors affecting technical AI safety outcomes. The field faces a widening gap: alignment methods show brittleness, interpretability is progressing but incomplete, and evaluation benchmarks are unreliable.
Computing layout...
Legend
Node Types
Root Causes
Derived
Direct Factors
Target
Arrow Strength
Strong
Medium
Weak
Scenarios Influenced
| Scenario | Effect | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| AI Takeover | ↑ Increases | strong |
| Human-Caused Catastrophe | ↑ Increases | weak |
| Long-term Lock-in | ↑ Increases | medium |