(Update: We think the tone of this post was overly positive considering our somewhat weak results. You can read our latest post with more takeaways and followup results here.)
This post motivates and summarizes this paper from Redwood Research, which presents results from the project first introduced here. We used adversarial training to improve high-stakes reliability in a task (“filter all injurious continuations of a story”) that we think is analogous to work that future AI safety engineers will need to do to reduce the risk of AI takeover. We experimented with three classes of adversaries – unaugmented humans, automatic paraphrasing, and humans augmented with a rewriting tool – and found that adversarial training was able to improve robustness to these three adversaries without affecting in-distribution performance. We think this work constitutes progress towards techniques that may substantially reduce the likelihood of deceptive alignment.
Motivation Here are two dimensions along which you could simplify the alignment problem (similar to the decomposition at the top of this post): 1. Low-stakes (but difficult to oversee): Only consider domains where each decision that an AI makes is low-stakes, so no single action can have catastrophic consequences. In this setting, the key challenge is to correctly oversee the actions that AIs take, such that humans remain in control over time. 2. Easy oversight (but high-stakes): Only consider domains where overseeing AI behavior is easy, meaning that it is straightforward to run an oversight process that can assess the goodness of any particular action.
Source:
https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/A9tJFJY7DsGTFKKkh/high-stakes-alignment-via-adversarial-training-redwood
Narrated for AI Safety Fundamentals by Perrin Walker of TYPE III AUDIO.
---
A podcast by BlueDot Impact.
Learn more on the AI Safety Fundamentals website.
