Many fellow alignment researchers may be operating under radically different assumptions from you: https://www.planned-obsolescence.org/disagreement-in-alignment/

If we can accurately recognize good performance on alignment, we could elicit lots of useful alignment work from our models, even if they're playing the training game: https://www.planned-obsolescence.org/training-ais-to-help-us-align-ais/

We're creating incentives for AI systems to make their behavior look as desirable as possible, while intentionally disregarding human intent when that conflicts with maximizing reward: https://www.planned-obsolescence.org/the-training-game/

AI systems that have a precise understanding of how they’ll be evaluated and what behavior we want them to display will earn more reward than AI systems that don’t: https://www.planned-obsolescence.org/situational-awareness/

Perfect alignment just means that AI systems won’t want to deliberately disregard their designers' intent; it's not enough to ensure AI is good for the world: https://www.planned-obsolescence.org/aligned-vs-good/

We’re trying to think ahead to a possible future in which AI is making all the most important decisions: https://www.planned-obsolescence.org/what-were-doing-here/