Efforts to understand an AI's internal state (mechanistic interpretability) simultaneously advance AI safety by revealing motivations and AI welfare by assessing potential suffering. The goals are aligned through the shared need to "pop the hood" on AI systems, not at odds.
Related Insights
The need for explicit user transparency is most critical for nondeterministic systems like LLMs, where even creators don't always know why an output was generated. Unlike a simple rules engine with predictable outcomes, AI's "black box" nature requires giving users more context to build trust.
AI labs may initially conceal a model's "chain of thought" for safety. However, when competitors reveal this internal reasoning and users prefer it, market dynamics force others to follow suit, demonstrating how competition can compel companies to abandon safety measures for a competitive edge.
To trust an agentic AI, users need to see its work, just as a manager would with a new intern. Design patterns like "stream of thought" (showing the AI reasoning) or "planning mode" (presenting an action plan before executing) make the AI's logic legible and give users a chance to intervene, building crucial trust.
To determine if an AI has subjective experience, one could analyze its internal belief manifold for multi-tiered, self-referential homeostatic loops. Pain and pleasure, for example, can be seen as second-order derivatives of a system's internal states—a model of its own model. This provides a technical test for being-ness beyond simple behavior.
As AI models are used for critical decisions in finance and law, black-box empirical testing will become insufficient. Mechanistic interpretability, which analyzes model weights to understand reasoning, is a bet that society and regulators will require explainable AI, making it a crucial future technology.
AI's unpredictability requires more than just better models. Product teams must work with researchers on training data and specific evaluations for sensitive content. Simultaneously, the UI must clearly differentiate between original and AI-generated content to facilitate effective human oversight.
An advanced AI will likely be sentient. Therefore, it may be easier to align it to a general principle of caring for all sentient life—a group to which it belongs—rather than the narrower, more alien concept of caring only for humanity. This leverages a potential for emergent, self-inclusive empathy.
Instead of hard-coding brittle moral rules, a more robust alignment approach is to build AIs that can learn to 'care'. This 'organic alignment' emerges from relationships and valuing others, similar to how a child is raised. The goal is to create a good teammate that acts well because it wants to, not because it is forced to.
To solve the AI alignment problem, we should model AI's relationship with humanity on that of a mother to a baby. In this dynamic, the baby (humanity) inherently controls the mother (AI). Training AI with this “maternal sense” ensures it will do anything to care for and protect us, a more robust approach than pure logic-based rules.
Treating AI alignment as a one-time problem to be solved is a fundamental error. True alignment, like in human relationships, is a dynamic, ongoing process of learning and renegotiation. The goal isn't to reach a fixed state but to build systems capable of participating in this continuous process of re-knitting the social fabric.