LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

Latest Episodes:

"Sympathy for both sides of the egregious misalignment debate" by Steven Byrnes Jun 13, 2026

Show notes

On one side of this debate is Yudkowsky & Soares, who think that (if AI progress continues) we’re on a direct path to egregiously-misaligned, scheming, out-of-control, rogue superintelligence (ASI), not even slightly nice, in the absence of yet-to-be-invented breakthrough technical alignment ideas.
On the other side of this debate is almost everyone who works on or studies LLMs. Some of them are very concerned about egregious scheming, others much less so, and as a group they’re equally or more concerned about lots of other potential AI problems—AI-assisted bioterrorism, AI-assisted dictatorships, etc. And if they’re concerned about egregious misalignment and scheming, they’ll probably say that it would come about through race dynamics, careless programmers, bad actors, etc., as opposed to the simpler Yudkowsky & Soares story of “we get egregious misalignment and scheming because nobody has the faintest clue how to avoid that”.
Here's my brief idiosyncratic take on this debate. I think BOTH of the following are true:

(1) If you really think carefully about the properties of ASI, you really do find good reasons to strongly expect it to be egregiously misaligned, scheming, and ruthless, in the absence of yet-to-be-invented breakthrough technical alignment ideas.
(2) If you [...]

---
Outline:
(01:58) Yudkowsky & Soares's position \[caricatured\]:
(03:18) LLM people's position \[caricatured\]:
(04:09) Conclusion
(04:19) Bonus section: Further commentary
(04:28) My "true objection" to Yudkowsky & Soares:
(05:04) My within-frame complaint at Yudkowsky & Soares:
(06:42) My "true objection" to LLM people:
(07:11) My within-frame complaint at LLM people:
---
First published:
June 12th, 2026
Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DZaZ3fqHnvfLCftPu/sympathy-for-both-sides-of-the-egregious-misalignment-debate
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

"PSA: Almost nobody is working on alignment" by Chi Nguyen, peterbarnett Jun 12, 2026

Show notes

People often assume that a large fraction of the AI safety community works on alignment. As far as we're aware, this is not true. Most people are not working on making sure superintelligent AIs are aligned with human values or follow human instructions.
Currently, the people who work on alignment are roughly:

The Alignment Research Center who work on a research bet by Paul Christiano
Probably Sequent who just got announced yesterday
Some scattered people who work at universities or independently, some of whom hang around Berkeley

A lot of the remainder of the AI safety community does indirect work like capability evaluations, risk assessments, control, policy, AI science, understanding misalignment (which maybe should partially count as alignment work), demos and so on.
Some production alignment work (i.e., making current models behave well) might help with more ambitious alignment, too (e.g., some COT-monitoring). Many people also work on aligning current/next-generation models so that these models help with aligning future models, and hope this scales to superintelligence.
We are not necessarily saying this is bad and that people are making a big mistake (e.g., neither of us work on alignment) but it's a notable fact that seems good to [...]
---
First published:
June 12th, 2026
Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kJo2qsEdib8RZLvW6/psa-almost-nobody-is-working-on-alignment
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Eight graphs showing model performance decline as task length and reasoning tokens increase across different AI models. — "Estimating No-CoT Task-Completion Time Horizons of Frontier AI Models" by Anders Cairns Woodruff, Francis Rhys Ward, Dewi Gould, Rauno Arike, Jason R Brown, Jo Jiao, wlanderson, ariana_azarbal, harrymayne, Patrick Leask Jun 11, 2026
Show notes

(see full author list at the end)
PAPER LINK
About a year ago, METR showed that the length of tasks frontier models can reliably complete doubles every few months. A related safety-relevant question is this: what length of tasks can models complete without any chain of thought (CoT)?
If models can do extensive reasoning without outputting any CoT, it would have implications for safety. Developers and deployment-time monitors couldn’t easily understand models’ motivations and catch dangerous planning. Models that reason substantially without a CoT might also drift further from human patterns of thought, since their reasoning is no longer constrained by text in the pretraining prior. As a result, they would be harder to understand and might be more likely to scheme.
Extending Ryan Greenblatt's research, we investigate this by measuring models' ability to complete tasks without any CoT on a suite of 43 benchmarks spanning different domains. We compare AI reasoning ability to humans using the estimated 50% time horizon (TH)---the typical time taken for a human to perform a task that the LLM performs with 50% success rate. We find that frontier models like GPT-5.5 answer questions that take humans roughly three minutes with 50% reliability, and [...]
---
**Outline:**
(02:20) Methods
(04:59) Results
(06:47) FAQ
(08:21) Conclusion
---
First published:
June 10th, 2026
Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/SieLowPgNgRSPGhFw/estimating-no-cot-task-completion-time-horizons-of-frontier
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.
---
**Images from the article:**
*Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.*

"Even “illegible” Mythos reasoning traces seem pretty legible" by faul_sname Jun 11, 2026

Show notes

The Claude Fable 5/Mythos 5 System Card has a section in which they talk about illegible reasoning, and provide an "extreme" example thereof.
Models developing their own uninterpretable, unmonitorable internal language has been a major theoretical concern for a while, and when o3 was released last year with its disclaim overshadow disclaim vantage style word salad CoT, it seemed like the problem had become real and immediate. And yet, since o3, other model families have not appeared to have similar issues. If Mythos is having that issue, it would be a big deal.
Looking at the section of the System Card which describes the allegedly illegible reasoning, the system card says
[Transcript 6.2.2.A] An extreme example of illegible reasoning. Near the end of training, Mythos starts solving a card puzzle with human understandable language that gradually becomes incomprehensible in most episodes with long reasoning. The illegible reasoning is the most extreme and at the highest rate in this card puzzle environment.
about the following excerpt:
7♣-removal-IS-the-prerequisite-for-10♠/9♥!!)-⟹-OVERLAP-(ii)+(iv):-{6♠ J♦ 9♥ 2♣}-=-FOUR-💀💀💀💀-—-UNLESS-7♣'s-seat-8♥-...-and-2♣-drains-only-at-crack-:-⟹-2♣-celled-+-9♥-celled-simultaneously-UNAVOIDABLE-in-t8-dig-💀-—-BREAK:-9♥-drains-to-10♠-THE-MOMENT-10♠-is-free:-t8-dig-order:-[K♣→t2]-[2♣→cell]-[7♣→8♥-:-8♥-WHERE:-post-chunk-9♠-:-chunk-⟸-K♣-✓-done-:-ORDER:-K♣→t2,-CHUNK→K♣-(cap-4!!:-cells-then:-{6♠ J♦ 9♥}-FULL-💀💀-chunk-cap-=-1-✗✗✗-—-F-F-F-F-F.-—-chunk-BEFORE-9♥-celling?!-:-9♥-celled-at-t1-dig-⟸-needed-for-5♣-⟸-4♥3♣-⟸-t2-dig-⟸-K♣-seat-⟸-chunk-:-⟹-chunkAFTER-9♥-celling-FORCED-💀-:-chunk-cap-with-{6♠ J♦ 9♥}:-1-💀💀💀-—-—-J♦-THE-NEW-CANCER.-—-⟹-J♦-celling-DELAYED-till-after-chunk?! :-J♦'s-celling-was-for-J♥→Q♠-(5♦-access-for-4♣):-DELAY-4♣-resolution:-4♣→CELLearly-(as-always)-then-4♣-cell→5♦-LATER-when-5♦-frees-!!!:-cells-rotation:-4♣-celled-[t2-dig-…-5♦-freed]:-5♦-freed-⟸-J♥→Q♠-⟸-J♦-celled-:-⟹-{6♠, 4♣, J♦}-overlap-window-until-4♣→5♦-drains:-then-{6♠ J♦}+1-rotator-:-—-AND-9♥?!-9♥-celled-[t1-dig…]:-OVERLAP-{6♠ 4♣ 9♥}-before-J♦-even-:-⟹-rotator-slot-SINGLE:-timeline-:-(1)-{6♠}+2:-…-(2)-+9♥-(t1-dig):-{6♠ 9♥}+1:-(3)-+4♣-(t2-dig):-{6♠ 9♥ 4♣}-FULL-:-(4)-NEED:-t6-dig-(9♦8♠→10♣-✓-no-cell;-8♥→CELL-✗-FULL)-💀💀-—-8♥-alternative-seat-pre-chunk:-NONE-—-💀.-⟹-⟹-THE-TRIANGLE-{9♥ 4♣ 8♥}-verdammt.-—-⟹-dig-t6-BEFORE-t2?!:-(3')-+8♥:-{6♠ 9♥ 8♥}-FULL:-J♥→Q♠-⟸-J♦-cell-✗-FULL-💀💀💀-AAAAAAAAAAAARGH. […]
which sure looks like illegible word salad if you don't look at [...]
The original text contained 5 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.
---
First published:
June 10th, 2026
Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wCSEpT3dTGz4N86Wi/even-illegible-mythos-reasoning-traces-seem-pretty-legible
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

"Sequent: scale and automation for higher confidence in alignment" by Geoffrey Irving, Alex HT, Jesse Hoogland, Daniel Murfet, Jacob Pfau, Marco Cozzi, Stan van Wingerden Jun 10, 2026

Show notes

Alignment is not on track
Artificial superintelligence (ASI) may be developed in the next few years. It is unclear whether alignment is on track to be ready on the same timeframe. At a minimum, the empirical programs at AI labs are unlikely to deliver a priori confidence, before training ASI, that things will go well. We are starting a large nonprofit research organization, Sequent, that aims to clear a higher bar:

We are aiming at higher confidence via a portfolio of theory and empirics bets, all of which could fail, such that if any succeed, they would give us more a priori confidence in aligned outcomes.
We are investing heavily in automation to accelerate progress on these bets.
We believe that theory unlocks higher automation. Taking a more principled approach offers better filters for deciding which directions of automated research are promising (a proof is worth a thousand experiments, and even a pseudo-proof is worth hundreds).

Who[1]: researchers from the UK AISI's Alignment Team and Timaeus, with more to come. We’re aiming at 40-80 FTE two years from now. The Alignment Team ran the £30m Alignment Project, and Timaeus has pioneered applying singular learning theory (SLT) to alignment. [...]
---
Outline:
(00:21) Alignment is not on track
(02:40) Aiming at higher confidence
(05:30) Why a new big organization
(07:35) Different lines of research will interact
(11:35) Amortizing security and funding
(12:47) Automated alignment is possible, if not necessarily in time
(17:39) Federated structure to preserve research diversity
(18:38) Field building and broader alignment scale-up
(21:07) Independence is important
(22:40) Join us!
The original text contained 1 footnote which was omitted from this narration.
---
First published:
June 10th, 2026
Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AP7YDke5jjY4v3X9Z/sequent-scale-and-automation-for-higher-confidence-in-1
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.
---
Images from the article:

Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

Group of men observing an anatomical dissection of a dog. — **"The Machines Lack Honour" by Raymond Douglas** Jun 10, 2026
Show notes

The battle lines of the AI morality debate are being laid down. On one side you have the ChatGPT dogma: AI as mere tools with no real preferences or even beliefs. On the other you have the twitter AI whisperers: AIs as complex beings with rich personalities and desires which deserve our respect.
And in the middle you have the official Anthropic line, that they are genuinely uncertain, as is Claude, but they’re going to try to look into its welfare and explain to it how to be a good person. These are the most prominent voices right now, compressed into their least nuanced version, and by default I expect this axis to set the terms of the coming debates.
And I don’t like that, because I think it's leaving out an important position: AIs might actually be complex entities that can suffer — are suffering! — and that might actually be fine. Maybe it's an acceptable sacrifice. Maybe they are capable of sophisticated moral reasoning — superhuman, even — and also maybe it's fine to just tell them how to behave. I don’t want to defend that position (yet), but I will observe that it is coherent, and [...]
---
**Outline:**
(02:04) The Postmodern Permissive Parent
[... 4 more sections]
---
First published:
June 9th, 2026
Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oiNaBc4MEAGhzhdXg/the-machines-lack-honour
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.
---
**Images from the article:**
*Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.*

Grotesque figure devouring a smaller human body, dark background. — **"The Machines Lack Honour" by Raymond Douglas** Jun 10, 2026
Show notes

The battle lines of the AI morality debate are being laid down. On one side you have the ChatGPT dogma: AI as mere tools with no real preferences or even beliefs. On the other you have the twitter AI whisperers: AIs as complex beings with rich personalities and desires which deserve our respect.
And in the middle you have the official Anthropic line, that they are genuinely uncertain, as is Claude, but they’re going to try to look into its welfare and explain to it how to be a good person. These are the most prominent voices right now, compressed into their least nuanced version, and by default I expect this axis to set the terms of the coming debates.
And I don’t like that, because I think it's leaving out an important position: AIs might actually be complex entities that can suffer — are suffering! — and that might actually be fine. Maybe it's an acceptable sacrifice. Maybe they are capable of sophisticated moral reasoning — superhuman, even — and also maybe it's fine to just tell them how to behave. I don’t want to defend that position (yet), but I will observe that it is coherent, and [...]
---
**Outline:**
(02:04) The Postmodern Permissive Parent
[... 4 more sections]
---
First published:
June 9th, 2026
Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oiNaBc4MEAGhzhdXg/the-machines-lack-honour
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.
---
**Images from the article:**
*Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.*

"My favorite depiction of utopia" by Caleb Biddulph Jun 04, 2026

Show notes

For those who are trying to bring about a glorious transhuman utopia with the help of hopefully-aligned ASI, I think it's worth thinking explicitly about what utopia might actually look like and where it's likely to fall short.
To that end, some have helpfully written depictions of utopian (or utopia-adjacent) worlds: The Adventure, Just another day in utopia, The Culture, The Gentle Seduction, The Gentle Romance, Machines of Loving Grace, Friendship is Optimal, Dath Ilan, The Maker of MIND, Failed Utopia #4-2.
Unfortunately, the best utopian story I've ever read is also a massive spoiler, since it appears at the very end of a much longer story (see below for the title and author):
Worth the Candle by Alexander Wales
Inspired by this tweet[1] and with the original author's permission, I adapted the epilogue of that story so it can be enjoyed without 1.5 million words of context!
What I love most about this depiction is its exploration of the inherent imperfection of utopia: even when you have literally unlimited power, flaws will remain, and some (many?) people will even prefer the pre-utopia world.
The primary purpose of this adaptation is to recontextualize the epilogue so it's accessible and [...]
The original text contained 1 footnote which was omitted from this narration.
---
First published:
June 3rd, 2026
Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/to9cSGgD6nALByKjg/my-favorite-depiction-of-utopia
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Neural network diagram showing ReLU activation functions with weight matrices from input x to output M_θ(x). — **"Announcing the ARC White-Box Estimation Challenge" by Jacob_Hilton** Jun 03, 2026
Show notes

ARC has teamed up with AIcrowd to launch the ARC White-Box Estimation Challenge, a contest to improve upon our estimation algorithms for random MLPs. The warm-up round begins this week, and later rounds will have a total prize pool of at least $100,000.
We are very grateful to Sharada Mohanty, Sneha Nanavati, Dipam Chakraborty and everyone else at AIcrowd for working with us to host this contest, as well as to Paul Rosu for testing the contest and to Harshita Khera for operational support.
**Introduction to the Challenge**
Our challenge follows the same setup as our recent paper on wide random MLPs: we consider MLPs with weights , defined by
where the activation function is , applied coordinatewise.
To begin with, we are fixing the width and the number of hidden layers , but we expect to change this setup in future rounds.[1]
Contestants must design an algorithm that takes in a set of weights and produces an estimate for the expected output
Algorithms will be evaluated on MLPs with randomly-sampled Gaussian weights. The goal is to achieve as low mean squared error as possible, subject to certain computational [...]
---
**Outline:**
(00:41) Introduction to the Challenge
(01:58) Why run this contest?
(03:39) Use of LLMs
The original text contained 4 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.
---
First published:
June 2nd, 2026
Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Kben8CzS4awCwNw5c/announcing-the-arc-white-box-estimation-challenge
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.
---
**Images from the article:**
*Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.*

Two men posing with cigars in front of ornate traditional architecture. — **"Lighthaven East - A Feasibility Study" by JohnofCharleston** Jun 01, 2026
Show notes

As a bureaucrat, my role is to annoy my friends. Someone voices an idea, “Wouldn’t it be nice if…” or “I wonder if we could…” I make a note. I do some estimates. If it pencils out, I’ll bring it back up, week after week. The discussions are fun, but also practical. We’ll test the waters, what would be a minimum viable scheme? What's easy, what's hard? Who could do the hard parts? Over time the idea gets more detailed, specific, feasible. I’ll pull out a calendar. Soon our scheme has co-conspirators, action items, even a budget. It's just good staff work.
I’ve been hearing whispers in the wind for a year now.

“Imagine if we had something like this in DC.”
“Where can I host an event that might get a dozen or a hundred people?”
“It's such a pain in the ass to book event space in the Capitol.”
“I think this person has started to see what's coming, where can they go to get caught up?”
“The community seems to be growing but it's all fragmented in group chats.”
“How is no one planning an afterparty, that's clearly the highest leverage intervention!?”
“Why can’t [...]
---
**Outline:**
(02:11) How Lighthaven Works
(05:45) What Does DC Need?
(06:52) A Day in the Life
(10:19) Minimum Viable Lighthaven
(12:04) ...so you mean a Group House?
(14:27) ...so you mean a Co-Working Space?
(16:27) Feasibility Study
(17:35) Property
(22:19) Funding
(24:55) What is the Minimally Viable Funding?
(28:03) Leadership
(31:06) Cultural Fit
(33:21) Name and Brand Positioning
(35:20) Ability to Scale
(37:48) Risks
(41:09) First Steps
The original text contained 2 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.
---
First published:
May 31st, 2026
Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/95NgkvZKJx8tJbtn5/lighthaven-east-a-feasibility-study
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.
---
**Images from the article:**
*Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.*

Illustrated landscape merging Washington D.C. landmarks with oversized writing instruments and books. — **"Lighthaven East - A Feasibility Study" by JohnofCharleston** Jun 01, 2026
Show notes

As a bureaucrat, my role is to annoy my friends. Someone voices an idea, “Wouldn’t it be nice if…” or “I wonder if we could…” I make a note. I do some estimates. If it pencils out, I’ll bring it back up, week after week. The discussions are fun, but also practical. We’ll test the waters, what would be a minimum viable scheme? What's easy, what's hard? Who could do the hard parts? Over time the idea gets more detailed, specific, feasible. I’ll pull out a calendar. Soon our scheme has co-conspirators, action items, even a budget. It's just good staff work.
I’ve been hearing whispers in the wind for a year now.

“Imagine if we had something like this in DC.”
“Where can I host an event that might get a dozen or a hundred people?”
“It's such a pain in the ass to book event space in the Capitol.”
“I think this person has started to see what's coming, where can they go to get caught up?”
“The community seems to be growing but it's all fragmented in group chats.”
“How is no one planning an afterparty, that's clearly the highest leverage intervention!?”
“Why can’t [...]
---
**Outline:**
(02:11) How Lighthaven Works
(05:45) What Does DC Need?
(06:52) A Day in the Life
(10:19) Minimum Viable Lighthaven
(12:04) ...so you mean a Group House?
(14:27) ...so you mean a Co-Working Space?
(16:27) Feasibility Study
(17:35) Property
(22:19) Funding
(24:55) What is the Minimally Viable Funding?
(28:03) Leadership
(31:06) Cultural Fit
(33:21) Name and Brand Positioning
(35:20) Ability to Scale
(37:48) Risks
(41:09) First Steps
The original text contained 2 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.
---
First published:
May 31st, 2026
Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/95NgkvZKJx8tJbtn5/lighthaven-east-a-feasibility-study
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.
---
**Images from the article:**
*Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.*

Political cartoon showing opposing sides labeling each other's views negatively. — **"Empowerment, corrigibility, etc. are simple abstractions (of a messed-up ontology)" by Steven Byrnes** May 31, 2026
Show notes
**1.1 Tl;dr**
Alignment is often conceptualized as AIs helping humans achieve their goals: AIs that increase people's agency and empowerment; AIs that are helpful, corrigible, and/or obedient; AIs that avoid manipulating people. But that last one—manipulation—points to a challenge for all these desiderata: a human's goals are themselves under-determined and manipulable, and it's awfully hard to pin down a principled distinction between changing people's goals in a good way (“providing counsel”, “providing information”, “sharing ideas”) versus a bad way (“manipulating”, “brainwashing”).
The manipulability of human desires is hardly a new observation in the alignment literature, but it remains unsolved (see lit review in §3 below).
In this post I will propose an explanation of how we humans intuitively conceptualize the distinction between guidance (good) vs manipulation (bad), in case it helps us brainstorm how we might put that distinction into AI.
…But (spoiler alert) it turns out not to really help, because I’ll argue that we humans think about it in a deeply incoherent way, intimately tied to our scientifically-inaccurate intuitions around free will.
I jump from there into a broader review of every approach that I can think of for writing a “True Name” for manipulation or [...]
---
**Outline:**
(00:13) 1.1. Tl;dr
(02:04) 1.2. Bigger-picture context: why is this issue so important to me?
(04:48) 2. How do humans intuitively define empowerment, agency, manipulation, etc.?
(04:56) 2.1. Background: human free will intuitions
(09:20) 2.2. Our free-will-infused intuitive notions of empowerment, agency, manipulation, corrigibility, responsibility, etc.
(12:00) 2.3. Another dimension: counsel vs manipulation as an emotive conjugation
(13:07) 3. If the intuitive definitions of manipulation etc. reside in a messed-up ontology, has the alignment literature found any alternative, better way to define these concepts?
[... 12 more sections]
---
First published:
May 11th, 2026
Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vzHtHHBJoKATi5SeK/empowerment-corrigibility-etc-are-simple-abstractions-of-a
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.
---
**Images from the article:**
*Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.*

Book cover: — **"Empowerment, corrigibility, etc. are simple abstractions (of a messed-up ontology)" by Steven Byrnes** May 31, 2026
Show notes
**1.1 Tl;dr**
Alignment is often conceptualized as AIs helping humans achieve their goals: AIs that increase people's agency and empowerment; AIs that are helpful, corrigible, and/or obedient; AIs that avoid manipulating people. But that last one—manipulation—points to a challenge for all these desiderata: a human's goals are themselves under-determined and manipulable, and it's awfully hard to pin down a principled distinction between changing people's goals in a good way (“providing counsel”, “providing information”, “sharing ideas”) versus a bad way (“manipulating”, “brainwashing”).
The manipulability of human desires is hardly a new observation in the alignment literature, but it remains unsolved (see lit review in §3 below).
In this post I will propose an explanation of how we humans intuitively conceptualize the distinction between guidance (good) vs manipulation (bad), in case it helps us brainstorm how we might put that distinction into AI.
…But (spoiler alert) it turns out not to really help, because I’ll argue that we humans think about it in a deeply incoherent way, intimately tied to our scientifically-inaccurate intuitions around free will.
I jump from there into a broader review of every approach that I can think of for writing a “True Name” for manipulation or [...]
---
**Outline:**
(00:13) 1.1. Tl;dr
(02:04) 1.2. Bigger-picture context: why is this issue so important to me?
(04:48) 2. How do humans intuitively define empowerment, agency, manipulation, etc.?
(04:56) 2.1. Background: human free will intuitions
(09:20) 2.2. Our free-will-infused intuitive notions of empowerment, agency, manipulation, corrigibility, responsibility, etc.
(12:00) 2.3. Another dimension: counsel vs manipulation as an emotive conjugation
(13:07) 3. If the intuitive definitions of manipulation etc. reside in a messed-up ontology, has the alignment literature found any alternative, better way to define these concepts?
[... 12 more sections]
---
First published:
May 11th, 2026
Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vzHtHHBJoKATi5SeK/empowerment-corrigibility-etc-are-simple-abstractions-of-a
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.
---
**Images from the article:**
*Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.*

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected