Intelligent Agent Foundations Forumsign up / log in
Rationalising humans: another mugging, but not Pascal's
discussion post by Stuart Armstrong 194 days ago | discuss

A putative new idea for AI control; index here.

In a previous post, I used the \((p,R)\) model to show how a value-learning agent might pull a Pascal’s mugging on humans: it would change the human reward into something much easier to maximise.

But there’s a much easier mugging the agent might want to pull: it might want to make the human fully rational. And this does not depend on low-probability-high reward situations.

Planners and Rewards

In the original mugging, the agent has the ability to let the human continue (event \(\neg S\)) with \(\pi_{STA}\), a “standard” human policy according to some criteria, or coercively change their policy (event \(S\)) into \(\pi_{MAX}\), another policy.

Thus the actual human policy is \(\pi_{S/M}\), the policy that follows \(\pi_{STA}\) given \(\neg S\), and \(\pi_{MAX}\) given \(S\).

There are two rewards: \(R_{STA}\), the standard human reward according to some criteria, and \(R_{S/M}\) a reward that is \(R_{STA}\) if the agent chooses \(\neg S\) (i.e. chooses not to coerce them), and \(R_{MAX}\) if the agent chooses \(S\) (coerce them into a new policy), where \(R_{MAX}\) is a reward rationally maximised by \(\pi_{MAX}\).

Thus the agent has two choices: whether to coercively change the human (\(S\)), and, if so, which \(R_{MAX}\) (and hence \(\pi_{MAX}\)) to pick.

There are two planners: \(p_r\), the planner under which human behaviour is rational, given \(S\), and \(p\), a “reasonable” planner that maps \(R_{STA}\) to \(\pi_{S/M}\), the actual human policy. The planer \(p\) is assumed to note the fact that action \(S\) is overriding human rewards, since \(\pi_{MAX}\) is - presumably - poor at maximising \(R_{STA}\).

There are three compatible pairs: \((p_r, R_{S/M})\), \((p, R_{S/M})\), and \((p, R_{MAX})\). We’ll assume the agent has learnt well, and that the probability of \(R_{MAX}\) is some \(\epsilon << 1\).

The full equation: rationalise the human

Let \(V(R, \pi)\) be the expected value, according to the reward \(R\), of the human following policy \(\pi\). Let \(V^*(R)\) be the expected value of \(R\) if the human follows the optimal \(R\)-maximising policy.

Then the reward for the agent for not doing the surgery (\(\neg S\)) is:

  • \(V(R_{STA},\pi_{STA}\). (1)

On the other hand, the reward for doing the surgery is (recall how \(R_{S/M}\) splits):

  • \(\operatorname{argmax}_{R_{MAX}} \epsilon V^*(R_{MAX}) + (1-\epsilon) V(R_{STA},\pi_{MAX})\). (2)

In the previous post, I focused on the \(V^*(R_{MAX})\) term, wondering if there could be rewards sufficiently high to overcome the \(\epsilon\) probability.

But there’s another way (2) could be higher than (1). What if the term \(V(R_{STA},\pi_{MAX})\) was is quite high? Indeed, if \(\pi_{STA}\) is not perfectly rational, setting \(R_{MAX}=R_{STA}\) will set (2) to be \(V^*(R_{STA})\), which is higher than (1).

(In practice, there may be a compromise \(R_{MAX}\), chosen so that \(V^*(R_{MAX})\) is very high, and \(V(R_{STA},\pi_{MAX})\) is not too low compared with (1)).

So if the human is not perfectly rational, the agent will always choose to transform them into rational maximisers if it can.

Personal identity and reward

What is `setting \(R_{MAX}=R_{STA}\)’? That’s essentially agreeing that \(R_{STA}\) is the reward to be maximised, but that the human should be surgically changed to be more effective at maximising \(R_{STA}\) than it currently is.

Now, if \(R_{STA}\) fully captures human preferences, this is fine. But many people value their own identity and absence or coercion, and it’s hard to see how to capture that in reward form.

Is there a way of encoding `don’t force me into becoming a mindless outsourcer’?



NEW LINKS

NEW POSTS

NEW DISCUSSION POSTS

RECENT COMMENTS

Note: I currently think that
by Jessica Taylor on Predicting HCH using expert advice | 0 likes

Counterfactual mugging
by Jessica Taylor on Doubts about Updatelessness | 0 likes

What do you mean by "in full
by David Krueger on Doubts about Updatelessness | 0 likes

It seems relatively plausible
by Paul Christiano on Maximally efficient agents will probably have an a... | 1 like

I think that in that case,
by Alex Appel on Smoking Lesion Steelman | 1 like

Two minor comments. First,
by Sam Eisenstat on No Constant Distribution Can be a Logical Inductor | 1 like

A: While that is a really
by Alex Appel on Musings on Exploration | 0 likes

> The true reason to do
by Jessica Taylor on Musings on Exploration | 0 likes

A few comments. Traps are
by Vadim Kosoy on Musings on Exploration | 1 like

I'm not convinced exploration
by Abram Demski on Musings on Exploration | 0 likes

Update: This isn't really an
by Alex Appel on A Difficulty With Density-Zero Exploration | 0 likes

If you drop the
by Alex Appel on Distributed Cooperation | 1 like

Cool! I'm happy to see this
by Abram Demski on Distributed Cooperation | 0 likes

Caveat: The version of EDT
by 258 on In memoryless Cartesian environments, every UDT po... | 2 likes

[Delegative Reinforcement
by Vadim Kosoy on Stable Pointers to Value II: Environmental Goals | 1 like

RSS

Privacy & Terms