 Kolmogorov complexity makes reward learning worse
discussion post by Stuart Armstrong 624 days ago | discuss

A putative new idea for AI control; index here.

In a previous post, I argued that Kolmogorov complexity/simplicity priors do not help when learning human values - that some extreme versions of the reward or planners were of roughly equal complexity.

Here I’ll demonstrate that it’s even worse than that: the extreme versions are likely simpler than a “reasonable” one would be.

Of course, as with any statement about Kolmogorov complexity, this is dependent on the computer language used. But I’ll aim to show that for a “reasonable” language, the result holds.

So let $$(p, R)$$ be a reasonable pair that encodes what we want to encode in human rationality and reward. It is compatible with the human policy $$\pi_H$$, in that $$p(R)=\pi_H$$.

Let $$(p_r, R_r)$$ be the compatible pair where $$p_r$$ is the rational Bayesian expected reward maximiser, with $$R_r$$ the corresponding reward so that $$p_r(R_r)=\pi_H$$.

Let $$(p_i, 0)$$ be the indifferent planner (indifferent to the choice of reward), chosen so that $$p_i(R')=\pi_H$$ for all $$R'$$. The reward $$0$$ is the trivial reward.

# Information content present in each pair

The planer $$p_i$$ is simply a map to $$\pi_H$$, so the only information in $$p_i$$ (and $$(p_i, 0)$$) is the definition of $$\pi_H$$.

The policy $$\pi_H$$ and the brief definition of an expected reward maximiser $$p_r$$ are the only information content in $$(p_r, R_r)$$.

On the other hand, $$(p, R)$$ defines not only $$\pi_H$$, but, at every action, it defines the bias or inefficiency of $$\pi_H$$, as the difference between the value of $$\pi_H$$ and the ideal $$R$$-maximising policy $$\pi_R$$. This is a large amount of information, including, for instance, every single human bias and example of bounded rationality.

None of the other pairs have this information (there’s no such thing as bias for the flat reward $$0$$, nor for the expected reward maximiser $$p_r$$), so $$(p, R)$$ contains a lot more information than the other pairs, so we expect it to have higher Kolmogorov complexity.

### NEW DISCUSSION POSTS

[Note: This comment is three
 by Ryan Carey on A brief note on factoring out certain variables | 0 likes

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 Vanessa Kosoy on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

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

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

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

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

Actually, I *am* including
 by Vanessa 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