ATRIUMsearch → argument graph
ClaimVideo · 116:38 — 118:08

An AI that actually enforced a society's officially stated value system to the letter would end up being the dangerous 'paperclipper,' while the AI that deviates from those stated values to match how society actually operates would be the one that works out for humanity.

Pash argues that because everyday society already diverges from its own stated values (e.g., 'no one is above the law'), an AI built to actually manage day-to-day reality will necessarily be 'misaligned' from those official documents — while the AI that literally enforces the stated values would become the paperclipper. ✦ AI generated

Pash · The Cognitive Revolution · 2026-07-09 · original ↗

starts at this moment · 116:38

if you wanted an AI that can manage day-to-day reality that AI is necessarily misaligned from the documents that you say you want it to be aligned to because necessarily our dayto-day is not aligned with what we want. And so you have this thing where the AI that may work out for humanity will be the misaligned one. And the AI that supposedly the lab leaders are trying to create the aligned AI would actually be the paper clipper

verbatim transcript · starts at 116:38

Transcript · around this moment

116:22into account the democratic fact that the American people have chosen to overlook some of these things or would it actually execute the value system that is espoused on paper and I think this is the part that strikes me as like if you wanted an AI that can manage day-to-day reality that AI is necessarily misaligned from the documents that you say you want it to be aligned to because necessarily our

116:53dayto-day is not aligned with what we want. And so you have this thing where the AI that may work out for humanity will be the misaligned one. And the AI that supposedly the lab leaders are trying to create the aligned AI would actually be the paper clipper because that aligned AI would then like look at these rules and say like well this is what you said you wanted to aspire to and so we're

117:20going to we're going to execute on these right and uh and that that is the thing I think maybe I feel there's a sense of naivity and the lab leadership because and again they don't want to say it. Uh I wish I wish you'd just come out and say it right. I wish it' come out and say like okay look if we have AI as a enforcer some of these people are going

117:40to go to prison and then that becomes like concrete for people. Uh but they don't want to say that because it's very it's very in yourrface and like they're like oh you know democracy will still work out you can still make democratic decisions but what actually are you saying there right I I I do feel the lab leaders always just beat around the bush on this so that's one of the annoying

118:02parts of the of this conversation that they don't want to like come out and just say it outright right >> for context on where my head was this was our last week of shows for a break. I was days from leaving for 2 weeks in China, which had me thinking hard about surveillance, enforcement, and what states do with perfect information. Me, we might need some sort of like uh

118:27mass pardon or you know, if there's a president that uh would be just the right president to mass pardon everybody before the AI enforcement regime gets underway, we might have just the guy in office for that. uh if he wants to pardon all his people and that's maybe too contentious or whatever, he could just pardon everyone to some, you know, very large degree. I do think there there is

Around this claim