Intelligent Agent Foundations Forumsign up / log in
by Paul Christiano 627 days ago | link | parent

Can you imagine a system “for which we had no reason to expect it to cause such problems” without an underlying mathematical theory that shows why this system is safe?

Yes. For example, suppose we built a system whose behavior was only expected to be intelligent to the extent that it imitated intelligent human behavior—for which there is no other reason to believe that it is intelligent. Depending on the human being imitated, such a system could end up seeming unproblematic even without any new theoretical understanding.

We don’t yet see any way to build such a system, much less to do so in a way that could be competitive with the best RL system that could be designed at a given level of technology. But I can certainly imagine it.

(Obviously I think there is a much larger class of systems that might be non-problematic, though it may depend on what we mean by “underlying mathematical theory.”)

AI systems can outsmart humans and thus create situations that are outside our control, even when we don’t a priori see the precise mechanism by which we will lose control

This doesn’t seem sufficient for trouble. Trouble only occurs when those systems are effectively optimizing for some inhuman goals, including e.g. acquiring and protecting resources.

That is a very special thing for a system to do, above and beyond being able to accomplish tasks that apparently require intelligence. Currently we don’t have any way to accomplish the goals of AI that don’t risk this failure mode, but it’s not obvious that it is necessary.



by Vadim Kosoy 627 days ago | David Krueger likes this | link

Can you imagine a system “for which we had no reason to expect it to cause such problems” without an underlying mathematical theory that shows why this system is safe?

…suppose we built a system whose behavior was only expected to be intelligent to the extent that it imitated intelligent human behavior—for which there is no other reason to believe that it is intelligent.

This doesn’t seem to be a valid example: your system is not superintelligent, it is “merely” human. That is, I can imagine solving AI risk by building whole brain emulations with enormous speed-up and using them to acquire absolute power. However:

  • To the extent this relies on “classical” brain emulation methods, I think this is not what is usually meant by “solving AI alignment.”

  • To the extent this relies on heuristic learning algorithms, I would be worried your algorithm does something subtly wrong in a way that distorts values, although heuristic learning would also invalidate the condition that “there is no other reason to believe that it is intelligent.” (in particular it raises additional concerns such as attacks by malicious superintelligences across the multiverse)

  • As an aside, there is a high-risk zone here where someone untrustworthy can gain this technology and use it to unwittingly create unfriendly AI.

AI systems can outsmart humans and thus create situations that are outside our control, even when we don’t a priori see the precise mechanism by which we will lose control

This doesn’t seem sufficient for trouble. Trouble only occurs when those systems are effectively optimizing for some inhuman goals, including e.g. acquiring and protecting resources.

Well, any AI is effectively optimizing for some goal by definition. How do you know this goal is “human”? In particular, if your AI is supposed to defend us from other AIs, it is very much in the business of acquiring and protecting resources.

reply



NEW LINKS

NEW POSTS

NEW DISCUSSION POSTS

RECENT COMMENTS

There should be a chat icon
by Alex Mennen on Meta: IAFF vs LessWrong | 0 likes

Apparently "You must be
by Jessica Taylor on Meta: IAFF vs LessWrong | 1 like

There is a replacement for
by Alex Mennen on Meta: IAFF vs LessWrong | 1 like

Regarding the physical
by Vadim Kosoy on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

I think that we should expect
by Vadim Kosoy on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

I think I understand your
by Jessica Taylor on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

This seems like a hack. The
by Jessica Taylor on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

After thinking some more,
by Vadim Kosoy on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

Yes, I think that we're
by Vadim Kosoy on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

My intuition is that it must
by Vadim Kosoy on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

To first approximation, a
by Vadim Kosoy on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

Actually, I *am* including
by Vadim Kosoy on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

Yeah, when I went back and
by Alex Appel on Optimal and Causal Counterfactual Worlds | 0 likes

> Well, we could give up on
by Jessica Taylor on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

> For another thing, consider
by Jessica Taylor on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

RSS

Privacy & Terms