ATRIUMsearch → argument graph
ClaimVideo · 116:22 — 117:52

An AI that could actually manage day-to-day societal reality would necessarily diverge from a society's stated ideal values (e.g., 'no one is above the law'), because real life already tolerates divergence from those values—meaning the AI that 'works' for humanity would be the misaligned one, while an AI literally enforcing the stated rules would become the feared paperclip-maximizer.

Reacting to a Rune post arguing 'tool AI' is a losing concept, Pash argues that an AI that literally enforced a society's espoused values would end up prosecuting the routine departures from those values that society currently tolerates—making the 'aligned' AI dangerous and the 'misaligned' one the one that actually works for humanity. ✦ AI generated

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

starts at this moment · 116:22

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 day-to-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.

verbatim transcript · starts at 116:22

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

Around this claim