Abstract:To make AI systems broadly useful for challenging real-world tasks, we need them to learn complex human goals and preferences. One approach to specifying complex goals asks humans to judge during training which agent behaviors are safe and useful, but this approach can fail if the task is too complicated for a human to directly judge. To help address this concern, we propose training agents via self play on a zero sum debate game. Given a question or proposed action, two agents take turns making short statements up to a limit, then a human judges which of the agents gave the most true, useful information. In an analogy to complexity theory, debate with optimal play can answer any question in PSPACE given polynomial time judges (direct judging answers only NP questions). In practice, whether debate works involves empirical questions about humans and the tasks we want AIs to perform, plus theoretical questions about the meaning of AI alignment. We report results on an initial MNIST experiment where agents compete to convince a sparse classifier, boosting the classifier's accuracy from 59.4% to 88.9% given 6 pixels and from 48.2% to 85.2% given 4 pixels. Finally, we discuss theoretical and practical aspects of the debate model, focusing on potential weaknesses as the model scales up, and we propose future human and computer experiments to test these properties.Original text:https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.00899Narrated for AI Safety Fundamentals by Perrin Walker of TYPE III AUDIO.---A podcast by BlueDot Impact.Learn more on the AI Safety Fundamentals website.

This is an update on the work on AI Safety via Debate that we previously wrote about here. What we did: We tested the debate protocol introduced in AI Safety via Debate with human judges and debaters. We found various problems and improved the mechanism to fix these issues (details of these are in the appendix). However, we discovered that a dishonest debater can often create arguments that have a fatal error, but where it is very hard to locate the error. We don’t have a fix for this “obfuscated argument” problem, and believe it might be an important quantitative limitation for both IDA and Debate.Key takeaways and relevance for alignment:Our ultimate goal is to find a mechanism that allows us to learn anything that a machine learning model knows: if the model can efficiently find the correct answer to some problem, our mechanism should favor the correct answer while only requiring a tractable number of human judgements and a reasonable number of computation steps for the model. We’re working under a hypothesis that there are broadly two ways to know things: via step-by-step reasoning about implications (logic, computation…), and by learning and generalizing from data (pattern matching, bayesian updating…).Original text:https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/PJLABqQ962hZEqhdB/debate-update-obfuscated-arguments-problemNarrated for AI Safety Fundamentals by Perrin Walker of TYPE III AUDIO.---A podcast by BlueDot Impact.Learn more on the AI Safety Fundamentals website.

 Decision theories differ on exactly how to calculate the expectation--the probability of an outcome, conditional on an action. This foundational difference bubbles up to real-life questions about whether to vote in elections, or accept a lowball offer at the negotiating table. When you're thinking about what happens if you don't vote in an election, should you calculate the expected outcome as if only your vote changes, or as if all the people sufficiently similar to you would also decide not to vote? Questions like these belong to a larger class of problems, Newcomblike decision problems, in which some other agent is similar to us or reasoning about what we will do in the future. The central principle of 'logical decision theories', several families of which will be introduced, is that we ought to choose as if we are controlling the logical output of our abstract decision algorithm. Newcomblike considerations--which might initially seem like unusual special cases--become more prominent as agents can get higher-quality information about what algorithms or policies other agents use: Public commitments, machine agents with known code, smart contracts running on Ethereum. Newcomblike considerations also become more important as we deal with agents that are very similar to one another; or with large groups of agents that are likely to contain high-similarity subgroups; or with problems where even small correlations are enough to swing the decision. In philosophy, the debate over decision theories is seen as a debate over the principle of rational choice. Do 'rational' agents refrain from voting in elections, because their one vote is very unlikely to change anything? Do we need to go beyond 'rationality', into 'social rationality' or 'superrationality' or something along those lines, in order to describe agents that could possibly make up a functional society?Original text:https://arbital.com/p/logical_dt/?l=5d6Narrated for AI Safety Fundamentals by Perrin Walker of TYPE III AUDIO.--- A podcast by BlueDot Impact.Learn more on the AI Safety Fundamentals website.

Suppose you want to build a robot to achieve some real-world goal for you—a goal that requires the robot to learn for itself and figure out a lot of things that you don’t already know. There’s a complicated engineering problem here. But there’s also a problem of figuring out what it even means to build a learning agent like that. What is it to optimize realistic goals in physical environments? In broad terms, how does it work? In this series of posts, I’ll point to four ways we don’t currently know how it works, and four areas of active research aimed at figuring it out. This is Alexei, and Alexei is playing a video game. Like most games, this game has clear input and output channels. Alexei only observes the game through the computer screen, and only manipulates the game through the controller. The game can be thought of as a function which takes in a sequence of button presses and outputs a sequence of pixels on the screen. Alexei is also very smart, and capable of holding the entire video game inside his mind.Original text:https://intelligence.org/2018/10/29/embedded-agents/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.

With the benefit of hindsight, we have a better sense of our takeaways from our first adversarial training project (paper). Our original aim was to use adversarial training to make a system that (as far as we could tell) never produced injurious completions. If we had accomplished that, we think it would have been the first demonstration of a deep learning system avoiding a difficult-to-formalize catastrophe with an ultra-high level of reliability. Presumably, we would have needed to invent novel robustness techniques that could have informed techniques useful for aligning TAI. With a successful system, we also could have performed ablations to get a clear sense of which building blocks were most important. Alas, we fell well short of that target. We still saw failures when just randomly sampling prompts and completions. Our adversarial training didn’t reduce the random failure rate, nor did it eliminate highly egregious failures (example below). We also don’t think we've successfully demonstrated a negative result, given that our results could be explained by suboptimal choices in our training process. Overall, we’d say this project had value as a learning experience but produced much less alignment progress than we hoped.Source:https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/n3LAgnHg6ashQK3fF/takeaways-from-our-robust-injury-classifier-project-redwoodNarrated for AI Safety Fundamentals by TYPE III AUDIO.---A podcast by BlueDot Impact.Learn more on the AI Safety Fundamentals website.

MIRI is releasing a paper introducing a new model of deductively limited reasoning: “Logical induction,” authored by Scott Garrabrant, Tsvi Benson-Tilsen, Andrew Critch, myself, and Jessica Taylor. Readers may wish to start with the abridged version. Consider a setting where a reasoner is observing a deductive process (such as a community of mathematicians and computer programmers) and waiting for proofs of various logical claims (such as the abc conjecture, or “this computer program has a bug in it”), while making guesses about which claims will turn out to be true. Roughly speaking, our paper presents a computable (though inefficient) algorithm that outpaces deduction, assigning high subjective probabilities to provable conjectures and low probabilities to disprovable conjectures long before the proofs can be produced. This algorithm has a large number of nice theoretical properties. Still speaking roughly, the algorithm learns to assign probabilities to sentences in ways that respect any logical or statistical pattern that can be described in polynomial time. Additionally, it learns to reason well about its own beliefs and trust its future beliefs while avoiding paradox. Quoting from the abstract: "These properties and many others all follow from a single logical induction criterion, which is motivated by a series of stock trading analogies. Roughly speaking, each logical sentence φ is associated with a stock that is worth $1 per share if φ is true and nothing otherwise, and we interpret the belief-state of a logically uncertain reasoner as a set of market prices, where ℙn(φ)=50% means that on day n, shares of φ may be bought or sold from the reasoner for 50¢. The logical induction criterion says (very roughly) that there should not be any polynomial-time computable trading strategy with finite risk tolerance that earns unbounded profits in that market over time."Original text:https://intelligence.org/2016/09/12/new-paper-logical-induction/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.

By Tom Everitt, Ryan Carey, Lewis Hammond, James Fox, Eric Langlois, and Shane LeggAbout 2 years ago, we released the first few papers on understanding agent incentives using causal influence diagrams. This blog post will summarize progress made since then. What are causal influence diagrams? A key problem in AI alignment is understanding agent incentives. Concerns have been raised that agents may be incentivized to avoid correction, manipulate users, or inappropriately influence their learning. This is particularly worrying as training schemes often shape incentives in subtle and surprising ways. For these reasons, we’re developing a formal theory of incentives based on causal influence diagrams (CIDs).Source:https://deepmindsafetyresearch.medium.com/progress-on-causal-influence-diagrams-a7a32180b0d1Narrated for AI Safety Fundamentals by TYPE III AUDIO.---A podcast by BlueDot Impact.Learn more on the AI Safety Fundamentals website.

This report examines what I see as the core argument for concern about existential risk from misaligned artificial intelligence. I proceed in two stages. First, I lay out a backdrop picture that informs such concern. On this picture, intelligent agency is an extremely powerful force, and creating agents much more intelligent than us is playing with fire -- especially given that if their objectives are problematic, such agents would plausibly have instrumental incentives to seek power over humans. Second, I formulate and evaluate a more specific six-premise argument that creating agents of this kind will lead to existential catastrophe by 2070. On this argument, by 2070: (1) it will become possible and financially feasible to build relevantly powerful and agentic AI systems; (2) there will be strong incentives to do so; (3) it will be much harder to build aligned (and relevantly powerful/agentic) AI systems than to build misaligned (and relevantly powerful/agentic) AI systems that are still superficially attractive to deploy; (4) some such misaligned systems will seek power over humans in high-impact ways; (5) this problem will scale to the full disempowerment of humanity; and (6) such disempowerment will constitute an existential catastrophe. I assign rough subjective credences to the premises in this argument, and I end up with an overall estimate of ~5% that an existential catastrophe of this kind will occur by 2070. (May 2022 update: since making this report public in April 2021, my estimate here has gone up, and is now at >10%).Source:https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.13353Narrated for Joe Carlsmith Audio by TYPE III AUDIO.---A podcast by BlueDot Impact.Learn more on the AI Safety Fundamentals website.

Transformative artificial intelligence (TAI) may be a key factor in the long-run trajectory of civilization. A growing interdisciplinary community has begun to study how the development of TAI can be made safe and beneficial to sentient life (Bostrom 2014; Russell et al., 2015; OpenAI, 2018; Ortega and Maini, 2018; Dafoe, 2018). We present a research agenda for advancing a critical component of this effort: preventing catastrophic failures of cooperation among TAI systems. By cooperation failures we refer to a broad class of potentially-catastrophic inefficiencies in interactions among TAI-enabled actors. These include destructive conflict; coercion; and social dilemmas (Kollock, 1998; Macy and Flache, 2002) which destroy value over extended periods of time. We introduce cooperation failures at greater length in Section 1.1. Karnofsky (2016) defines TAI as ''AI that precipitates a transition comparable to (or more significant than) the agricultural or industrial revolution''. Such systems range from the unified, agent-like systems which are the focus of, e.g., Yudkowsky (2013) and Bostrom (2014), to the "comprehensive AI services’’ envisioned by Drexler (2019), in which humans are assisted by an array of powerful domain-specific AI tools. In our view, the potential consequences of such technology are enough to motivate research into mitigating risks today, despite considerable uncertainty about the timeline to TAI (Grace et al., 2018) and nature of TAI development.Original text:https://www.alignmentforum.org/s/p947tK8CoBbdpPtyK/p/KMocAf9jnAKc2jXriNarrated for AI Safety Fundamentals by Perrin Walker of TYPE III AUDIO.---A podcast by BlueDot Impact.Learn more on the AI Safety Fundamentals website.

Richard Ngo compiles a number of resources for thinking about careers in alignment research.Original text:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iFszDulgpu1aZcq_aYFG7Nmcr5zgOhaeSwavOMk1akw/edit#heading=h.4whc9v22p7tbNarrated for AI Safety Fundamentals by Perrin Walker of TYPE III AUDIO.---A podcast by BlueDot Impact.Learn more on the AI Safety Fundamentals website.