Alignment to what? We don't have a standard model of cognition. We're essentially like alchemists before the periodic table and seem to be about as aware of the lack of a standard model as they were of the table. Lots of math, guesses, mystifications, surprises, accidents, and impressive results from "recipes" bound to less-than-impressive explanations.
A standard model not only provides a set of stable terms and relations to serve current explanation, it provides the framework for and optimization of how we go about forming and selecting lines of research. It becomes the basis of ongoing inquiries.
This isn't an exotic expectation. Any mature science has a standard model, albeit (and fortunately) evolving. Almost any time I point this out to a ML scientist or engineer, it's deer in the headlights.
If we're going to engineer something that approximates intelligence, and we have no common standard model of intelligence...do I need to say more???
Alignment to what? We don't have a standard model of cognition. We're essentially like alchemists before the periodic table and seem to be about as aware of the lack of a standard model as they were of the table. Lots of math, guesses, mystifications, surprises, accidents, and impressive results from "recipes" bound to less-than-impressive explanations.
A standard model not only provides a set of stable terms and relations to serve current explanation, it provides the framework for and optimization of how we go about forming and selecting lines of research. It becomes the basis of ongoing inquiries.
This isn't an exotic expectation. Any mature science has a standard model, albeit (and fortunately) evolving. Almost any time I point this out to a ML scientist or engineer, it's deer in the headlights.
If we're going to engineer something that approximates intelligence, and we have no common standard model of intelligence...do I need to say more???