(This argument reduces my hope that we will have AIs that are both aligned with humans in some sense and also highly philosophically competent, which aside from achieving a durable AI pause, has been my main hope for how the future turns out well. As this is a recent realization[1], I'm still pretty uncertain how much I should update based on it, or what its full implications are.)

Being a good alignment researcher seems to require a correct understanding of the nature of values. However metaethics is currently an unsolved problem, with all proposed solutions having flawed or inconclusive arguments, and lots of disagreement among philosophers and alignment researchers, therefore the current meta-correct metaethical position seems to be one of confusion and/or uncertainty. In other words, a good alignment researcher (whether human or AI) today should be confused and/or uncertain about the nature of values.

However, metaethical confusion/uncertainty seems incompatible with being 100% aligned with human values or intent, because many plausible metaethical positions are incompatible with such alignment, and having positive credence in them means that one can't be sure that alignment with human values or intent is right. (Note that I'm assuming an AI design or implementation [...]

The original text contained 1 footnote which was omitted from this narration.

---

First published:
December 27th, 2025

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/N6tsGwxaAo7iGTiBG/a-conflict-between-ai-alignment-and-philosophical-competence

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

“A Conflict Between AI Alignment and Philosophical Competence” by Wei Dai

LessWrong (30+ Karma)

“A Conflict Between AI Alignment and Philosophical Competence” by Wei Dai