Intelligent Agent Foundations Forumsign up / log in
An implementation of modal UDT
post by Benja Fallenstein 771 days ago | Jessica Taylor, Luke Muehlhauser, Nate Soares and Patrick LaVictoire like this | discuss

One of the great advantages of working with Gödel-Löb provability logic is that it’s possible to implement an evaluator which efficiently checks whether a sentence in the language of GL is true. Mihaly and Marcello used this to write a program that checks whether two modal agents cooperate or defect against each other. Today, Nate and I extended this with an implementation of modal UDT, which allows us to check what UDT does on different decision problems—see Program.hs in the Github repository. No guarantees for correctness, since this was written rather quickly; if anybody is able to take the time to check the code, that would be very much appreciated!


The implementation of UDT is rather pleasing, I think. Here’s the informal definition of modal UDT, using PA + \(\ell\):

  • For every possible outcome \(j\), from best to worst:
    • For every possible action \(i\), in order:
      • If it’s provable in PA + \(\ell\) that “UDT takes action \(i\)” implies “the universe returns outcome \(j\)”, then take action \(i\).
  • If you’re still here, return a default action.

Here is the corresponding Haskell code:

udt :: (Enum a,Ord b,Show b,Enum b)
    => Int -> ModalProgram b a -> b -> ModalProgram b b
udt level univ dflt = modalProgram dflt $
  mFor $ \a ->
    mFor $ \b ->
      mIf (boxk level (Var b %> univ a)) (mReturn b)

Being able to write modal UDT like this makes it very easy to implement and try small variations on the code.


We used this code to check what modal UDT would do in a version of Newcomb’s problem where Omega uses proofs in PA (rather than simulations) to decide whether to put the money in the box; that is, it will put a million dollars in the first box if and only if it can prove that you will one-box. If our code is correct, it turns out that in this case, modal UDT will do whatever its default action was.

Earlier, we thought we had proved a different result on the whiteboard, but after the code disagreed with us, we went over it again and found a bug in our proof. After fixing that bug, we now have a manual proof that UDT will end up taking its default action in this scenario (which I’ll write about some other time). So looks like this can be a useful tool for figuring out this sort of thing!



NEW LINKS

NEW POSTS

NEW DISCUSSION POSTS

RECENT COMMENTS

I don't know which open
by Jessica Taylor on Some problems with making induction benign, and ap... | 0 likes

KWIK learning is definitely
by Vadim Kosoy on Some problems with making induction benign, and ap... | 0 likes

I should have said "reliably
by Patrick LaVictoire on HCH as a measure of manipulation | 0 likes

I think that one can argue
by Vadim Kosoy on Generalizing Foundations of Decision Theory | 0 likes

"Having a well-calibrated
by Jessica Taylor on HCH as a measure of manipulation | 0 likes

Re #2, I think this is an
by Patrick LaVictoire on HCH as a measure of manipulation | 0 likes

Re #1, an obvious set of
by Patrick LaVictoire on HCH as a measure of manipulation | 0 likes

There's the additional
by Patrick LaVictoire on HCH as a measure of manipulation | 0 likes

I agree it's not a complete
by David Krueger on An idea for creating safe AI | 0 likes

I spoke with Huw about this
by David Krueger on An idea for creating safe AI | 0 likes

Both of your conjectures are
by Alex Mennen on Generalizing Foundations of Decision Theory | 0 likes

I can think of two problems:
by Ryan Carey on HCH as a measure of manipulation | 0 likes

Question that I haven't seen
by Patrick LaVictoire on All the indifference designs | 0 likes

Agree that IRL doesn't solve
by Jessica Taylor on Some problems with making induction benign, and ap... | 0 likes

Designing an agent which is
by Vadim Kosoy on An idea for creating safe AI | 0 likes

RSS

Privacy & Terms