42n⁝ AI alignment

AI alignment

42 AI

Feb - 2026 note

Cognitive capability and goals do not automatically converge on human well-being.
The key question is not only whether this is possible, but how goals are formed, stabilized, and controlled.

---

https://www.lesswrong.com/w/orthogonality-thesis

One year later note Feb 2026

• Which version of the thesis are we adopting?
  • the weak version (logical possibility), or
  • the strong version (the practical “ease” of implementing arbitrary goals).
• What does this imply for current ML models?
  • Do contemporary LLMs/agents actually fit the model of a coherent terminal objective?
  • Or are they better understood as a mixture of heuristics, policies, and local objectives?
• Probability vs. possibility
  • Even if orthogonality is true as a design-space thesis, the key practical questions are:
    • Which goals are most likely to arise under real training pipelines?
    • Are human-friendly goals easier or harder to stabilize?
• Relation to 42n1⁝ Metaethics and philosophy (philosophy)
  • Is orthogonality really neutral with respect to metaethics?
  • Or does it still imply something about moral realism / internalism?
• Misalignment vs. misuse (human abuse / malicious use)
  • AI itself optimizes in a misaligned way, vs.
  • Humans use AI for harmful goals.