All of Megan Kinniment's Comments + Replies

1. How does this relate to speed prior and stuff like that?

I list this in the concluding section as something I haven't thought about much but would think about more if I spent more time on it.

2. If the agent figures out how to build another agent...

Yes, tackling these kinds of issues is the point of this post. I think efficient thinking measures would be very difficult / impossible to actually specify well, and I use compute usage as an example of a crappy efficient thinking measure. The point is that even if the measure is crap, it might still be able to... (read more)

For the newspaper and reddit post examples, I think false beliefs remain relevant since these are observations about beliefs. For example, the observation of BigCo announcing they have solved alignment is compatible with worlds where they actually have solved alignment, but also with worlds where BigCo have made some mistake and alignment hasn't actually been solved, even though people in-universe believe that it has. These kinds of 'mistaken alignment' worlds seem like they would probably contaminate the conditioning to some degree at least. (Especially if there are ways that early deceptive AIs might be able to manipulate BigCo and others into making these kinds of mistakes).

1Adam Jermyn2y
Fully agreed.

Something I’m unsure about here is whether it is possible to separately condition on worlds where X is in fact the case, vs worlds where all the relevant humans (or other text-writing entities) just wrongly believe that X is the case. 

Essentially, is the prompt (particularly the observation) describing the actual facts about this world, or just the beliefs of some in-world text-writing entity? Given that language is often (always?) written by fallible entities, it seems at least not unreasonable to me to assume the second rather than the fir... (read more)

1Adam Jermyn2y
I'm assuming we can input observations about the world for conditioning, and those don't need to be text. I didn't go into this in the post, but for example I think the following are fair game: * Physical newspapers are exist which report BigLab has solved the alignment problem. * A camera positioned 10km above NYC would take a picture consistent with humans walking on the street. * There is data on hard drives consistent with Reddit posts claiming BigCo has perfected interpretability tools. Whereas the following are not allowed because I don't see how they could be operationalized: * BigLab has solved the alignment problem. * Alice is not deceptive. * BigCo has perfected interpretability tools.