does AI alignment clarify and justify Friedrich Hayek's libertarianism?

The AI alignment problem is often driven by a fear that AIs will be too intelligent for humans to control. But the classic alignment problem was Bostrom's paperclip example showing that humans cannot anticipate every possible consequence of their interventions, in this case the unintended consequences of their prompts. It's not a problem with the unlimited power of AI; it's a human limitation. 

It's the weakness or intellectual limitation that Hayek recognized as the danger of utopianism and intervening in the economy. But does it imply that we should never prompt AI again? There are surely lessons to draw from the AI alignment problem, but absolutes and false dichotomies (if we build it we all die) don't seem to me useful ones. 

The analogy between AI and economies fails at points. We could give up on AI entirely, dismantle what exists and never build more. That would certainly solve the AI problem for society, at some sacrifice of possible futures. But giving up on society and dismantling it is not a solution to society. We can't stop all social activity or even limit it across the board. There are always interests motivating actions, so forcing government to do nothing is a kind of intervention -- facilitating the organized or powerful interests while leaving the unorganized and disempowered to the manipulations of the powerful. We need government to protect us from those short-sighted interests, including the short-sighted interests of the masses. Democratic liberalism has a patchy record on this since politicians depend on elections, which means catering to interests that are all short-sighted. 

And there's where the analogy reemerges from society to AI: the lesson of liberal democracy is that no government will be perfect, so don't expect AI alignment to be perfect. Is the lesson that top-down control -- of society and of AI -- is necessary? Or are there bottom-up means of solving both? ACX recently discusses the tendency for AI to spread its propensities. If it's trained on moral texts, it's likely to imitate those moral positions. The problem comes back to the paperclip one: how can we anticipate all the unintended consequences of our Abrahamic morality whether consequentialist or deontic? 

I don't think there's an answer to this, but if there is one, it'll emerge in the process of AI alignment and AI development. AI clarifies these age-old problematics and may solve them. (AI is the zombie revival of behaviorism)