Intelligent Agent Foundations Forumsign up / log in
by Benja Fallenstein 923 days ago | Patrick LaVictoire likes this | link | parent

Next, we consider the case that PA is consistent and work through the agent’s decision. PA can’t prove \(A()\neq1\), since we used the chicken rule, so since the sentence \(A()=1\to U()=5\) is easily provable, the sentence \(A()=1\to U()=10\) (ie. the first sentence that the agents checks for proofs of) must be unprovable.

It seems like this argument needs soundness of PA, not just consistency of PA. Do you see a way to prove in PA that if \(\mathrm{PA}\vdash A()\neq 1\), then PA is inconsistent?

[edited to add:] However, your idea reminds me of my post on the odd counterfactuals of playing chicken, and I think the example I gave there makes your idea go through:

The scenario is that you get 10 if you take action 1 and it’s not provable that you don’t take action 1; you get 5 if you take action 2; and you get 0 if you take action 1 and it’s provable that you don’t. Clearly you should take action 1, but I prove that modal UDT actually takes action 2. To do so, I show that PA proves \(A() = 1 \to \neg\square\ulcorner A() = 1\urcorner\). (Then from the outside, \(A() = 2\) follows from the outside by soundness of PA.)

This seems to make your argument go through if we can also show that PA doesn’t show \(A() \neq 1\). But if it did, then modal UDT would take action 1 because this comes first in its proof search, contradiction.

Thus, PA proves \(A() = 1 \to U() = 0\) (because this follows from \(A() = 1 \to \neg\square\ulcorner A() = 1\urcorner\)), and also PA doesn’t prove \(A() = 1 \to U() = 10\). As in your argument, then, the trolljecture implies that we should think “if the agent takes action 1, it gets utility 0” is a good counterfactual, and we don’t think that’s true.

Still interested in whether you can make your argument go through in your case as well, especially if you can use the chicken step in a way I’m not seeing yet. Like Patrick, I’d encourage you to develop this into a post.



by Sam Eisenstat 923 days ago | Benja Fallenstein and Patrick LaVictoire like this | link

The argument that I had in mind was that if \(\rm{PA} \vdash \tt{A()} \ne 1\), then \(\rm{PA} \vdash \square \ulcorner \tt{A()} \ne 1 \urcorner\), so \(\rm{PA} \vdash \tt{A()} = 1\) since PA knows how the chicken rule works. This gives us \(\rm{PA} \vdash \bot\), so PA can prove that if \(\rm{PA} \vdash \tt{A()} \ne 1\), then PA is inconsistent. I’ll include this argument in my post, since you’re right that this was too big a jump.

Edit: We also need to use this argument to show that the modal UDT agent gets to the part where it iterates over utilities, rather than taking an action at the chicken rule step. I didn’t mention this explicitly, since I felt like I had seen it before often enough, but now I realize it is nontrivial enough to point out.

reply



NEW LINKS

NEW POSTS

NEW DISCUSSION POSTS

RECENT COMMENTS

Indeed there is some kind of
by Vadim Kosoy on Catastrophe Mitigation Using DRL | 0 likes

Very nice. I wonder whether
by Vadim Kosoy on Hyperreal Brouwer | 0 likes

Freezing the reward seems
by Vadim Kosoy on Resolving human inconsistency in a simple model | 0 likes

Unfortunately, it's not just
by Vadim Kosoy on Catastrophe Mitigation Using DRL | 0 likes

>We can solve the problem in
by Wei Dai on The Happy Dance Problem | 1 like

Maybe it's just my browser,
by Gordon Worley III on Catastrophe Mitigation Using DRL | 2 likes

At present, I think the main
by Abram Demski on Looking for Recommendations RE UDT vs. bounded com... | 0 likes

In the first round I'm
by Paul Christiano on Funding opportunity for AI alignment research | 0 likes

Fine with it being shared
by Paul Christiano on Funding opportunity for AI alignment research | 0 likes

I think the point I was
by Abram Demski on Predictable Exploration | 0 likes

(also x-posted from
by Sören Mindermann on The Three Levels of Goodhart's Curse | 0 likes

(x-posted from Arbital ==>
by Sören Mindermann on The Three Levels of Goodhart's Curse | 0 likes

>If the other players can see
by Stuart Armstrong on Predictable Exploration | 0 likes

Thinking about this more, I
by Abram Demski on Predictable Exploration | 0 likes

> So I wound up with
by Abram Demski on Predictable Exploration | 0 likes

RSS

Privacy & Terms