  The AGI alignment problem has a bimodal distribution of outcomes with most
outcomes clustering around the poles of total success and existential,
catastrophic failure. Consequently, attempts to solve AGI alignment should, all
else equal, prefer false negatives (ignoring research programs that would have
been successful) to false positives (pursuing research programs that will
unexpectedly fail). Thus, we propose adopting a policy of responding to points
of philosophical and practical uncertainty associated with the alignment
problem by limiting and choosing necessary assumptions to reduce the risk of
false positives. Herein we explore in detail two relevant points of uncertainty
that AGI alignment research hinges on---meta-ethical uncertainty and
uncertainty about mental phenomena---and show how to reduce false positives in
response to them.
