AI ALIGNMENT FORUM
AF

4065
Ram Potham
001
Message
Dialogue
Subscribe

My goal is to do work that counterfactually reduces AI risk from loss-of-control scenarios. My perspective is shaped by my experience as the founder of a VC-backed AI startup, which gave me a firsthand understanding of the urgent need for safety.

I have a B.S. in Artificial Intelligence from Carnegie Mellon and am currently a CBAI Fellow at MIT/Harvard. My primary project is ForecastLabs, where I'm building predictive maps of the AI landscape to improve strategic foresight.

I subscribe to Crocker's Rules and am especially interested to hear unsolicited constructive criticism. http://sl4.org/crocker.html - inspired by Daniel Kokotajlo.

 

(xkcd meme)

(xkcd meme)

Posts

Sorted by New

Wikitag Contributions

Comments

Sorted by
Newest
No posts to display.
0Ram Potham's Shortform
6mo
0
1. The CAST Strategy
Ram Potham5mo00

If you ask a corrigible agent to bring you a cup of coffee, it should confirm that you want a hot cup of simple, black coffee, then internally check to make sure that the cup won’t burn you, that nobody will be upset at the coffee being moved or consumed, that the coffee won’t be spilled, and so on. But it will also, after performing these checks, simply do what’s instructed. A corrigible agent’s actions should be straightforward, easy to reverse and abort, plainly visible, and comprehensible to a human who takes time to think about them. Corrigible agents proactively study themselves, honestly report their own thoughts, and point out ways in which they may have been poorly designed. A corrigible agent responds quickly and eagerly to corrections, and shuts itself down without protest when asked. Furthermore, small flaws and mistakes when building such an agent shouldn’t cause these behaviors to disappear, but rather the agent should gravitate towards an obvious, simple reference-point.

 

Isn't corrigibility still susceptible to power-seeking according to this definition? It wants to bring you a cup of coffee, it notices the chances of spillage are reduced if it has access to more coffee, so it becomes a coffee maximizer as in instrumental goal.

Now, it is still corrigible, it does not hide it's thought processes, it tells the human exactly what it is doing and why. But when the agent is doing millions of decisions and humans can only review so many thought processes (only so many humans will take the time to think about the agent's actions), many decisions will fall through the crack and end up being misaligned.

Is the goal to learn the human's preferences through interaction then, and hope that it learns the preferences enough to know that power-seeking (and other harmful behaviors) are bad? 

The problem is, there could be harmful behaviors we haven't thought of to train the AI in, and they are never corrected, so the AI proceeds with them. 

If so, can we define a corrigible agent that is actually what we want?

Reply
Postmortems
4 months ago