Many people in alignment believe that alignment as a field is currently preparadigmatic. There are a number of competing paradigms with different supporters, without much consensus on a fieldwide paradigm.

Some examples of when this question resolves as Yes:

• Most alignment researchers that I know agree that a particular paradigm (or small family of paradigms) is the best frame for alignment and captures the "hard part"

• Most alignment researchers that I know fall into one of a small number (<=3) of camps supporting different paradigms, but most alignment researchers that I know agree that all of these paradigms capture the "hard part" of alignment (but disagree which frame is the most "natural" one).

Some examples of No resolutions:

• There continue to be a large number of different paradigms.

• There is substantial disagreement over which paradigms capture the "hard part" of alignment, or what the "hard part" even looks like.

This market is pretty subjective.