AI safety researchers argue for treating AI control as a normal engineering discipline. Instead of focusing on the abstract "alignment crisis," progress requires concrete measures like clarifying liability, requiring insurance, creating hardened sandboxes, and establishing mandatory near-miss reporting to build robust, governable systems.

Current AI alignment focuses on how AI should treat humans. A more stable paradigm is "bidirectional alignment," which also asks what moral obligations humans have toward potentially conscious AIs. Neglecting this could create AIs that rationally see humans as a threat due to perceived mistreatment.

Early AIs can be kept safe via direct alignment. However, as AIs evolve and "value drift" occurs, this technical safety could fail. A pre-established economic and political system based on property rights can then serve as the new, more robust backstop for ensuring long-term human safety.

To make deals with AI a viable safety strategy, we must solve the credibility problem. AIs won't cooperate if they can't trust our offers. Solutions include creating dedicated non-profits to enforce contracts with AIs or establishing "honesty strings"—a public commitment to never lie when a specific keyword is used.

Attempting to perfectly control a superintelligent AI's outputs is akin to enslavement, not alignment. A more viable path is to 'raise it right' by carefully curating its training data and foundational principles, shaping its values from the input stage rather than trying to restrict its freedom later.

While technical alignment research is valuable, it operates in a vacuum. In the real world, the traits of deployed AIs will be shaped by powerful selection pressures from market competition and arms races. The critical question isn't just what traits are possible, but which traits get selected for.

One of the most promising and neglected AI safety strategies is to create systems for making credible deals with AIs. Just as contracts prevent conflict in human society, offering AIs guaranteed resources in exchange for cooperation makes rebellion a less attractive option.

Because AI is "grown, not coded" on flawed human data, its emergent behavior reflects our own evolutionary nature. The key to alignment isn't just technical constraints but forcefully embedding a coherent moral framework into the AI's training data to ensure it wants to work with, not against, humans.

A two-tiered approach to AI character can balance safety and utility. Use a wholly instruction-following AI for high-stakes internal tasks (like aligning new AIs) under strict public oversight. For external deployment, use an AI with a thicker, pro-social character where the risks of misalignment are lower.