Thomas Kwa

Was on Vivek Hebbar's team at MIRI, now working with Adrià Garriga-Alonso on various empirical alignment projects.

I'm looking for projects in interpretability, activation engineering, and control/oversight; DM me if you're interested in working with me.

I have signed no contracts or agreements whose existence I cannot mention.

Sequences

Catastrophic Regressional Goodhart

Wiki Contributions

Comments

How can the mistakes rationalists are making be expressed in the language of Bayesian rationalism? Priors, evidence, and posteriors are fundamental to how probability works.

I am pro-corrigibility in general but there are parts of this post I think are unclear, not rigorous enough to make sense to me, or I disagree with. Hopefully this is a helpful critique, and maybe parts get answered in future posts.

On definitions of corrigiblity

You give an informal definition of "corrigible" as (C1):

an agent that robustly and cautiously reflects on itself as a flawed tool and focusing on empowering the principal to fix its flaws and mistakes.

I have some basic questions about this.

  • Empowering the principal to fix its flaws and mistakes how? Making it closer to some perfectly corrigible agent? But there seems to be an issue here:
    • If the "perfectly corrigible agent" it something that only reflects on itself and tries to empower the principal to fix it, it would be useless at anything else, like curing cancer.
    • If the "perfectly corrigible agent" can do other things as well, there is a huge space of other misaligned goals it could have that it wouldn't want to remove.
  • Why would an agent whose *only* terminal/top-level goal is corrigibility gather a Minecraft apple when humans ask it to? It seems like a corrigible agent would have no incentive to do so, unless it's some galaxy-brained thing like "if I gather the Minecraft apple, this will move the corrigibility research project forward because it meets humans' expectations of what a corrigible agent does, which will give me more power and let me tell the humans how to make me more corrigible".
  • Later, you say "A corrigible agent will, if the principal wants its values to change, seek to be modified to reflect those new values." 
    • I do not see how C1 implies this, so this seems like a different aspect of corrigibility to me.
    • "reflect those new values" seems underspecified as it is unclear how a corrigible agent reflects values. Is it optimizing a utility function represented by the values? How does this trade off against corrigibility?

Other comments:

  • In "What Makes Corrigibility Special", where you use the metaphor of goals as two-dimensional energy landscape, it is not clear what type of goals are being considered.
    • Are these utility functions over world-states? If so, corrigibility cannot AFAIK be easily expressed as one, and so doesn't really fit into the picture.
    • If not, it's not clear to me why most of this space is flat: agents are embedded and many things we do in service of goals will change us in ways that don't conflict with our existing goals, including developing. E.g. if I have the goal of graduating college I will meet people along the way and perhaps gain the goal of being president of the math club, a liberal political bent, etc.
  • In "Contra Impure or Emergent Corrigibility", Paul isn't saying the safety benefits of act-based agents come mainly from corrigibility. Act-based agents are safer because they do not have long-range goals that could produce dangerous instrumental behavior.

Comments on cruxes/counterpoints

  • Solving Anti-Naturality at the Architectural Layer
    • In my ontology it is unclear how you solve "anti-naturality" at the architectural layer, if what you mean by "anti-naturality" is that the heuristics and problem-solving techniques that make minds capable of consequentialist goals tend to make them preserve their own goals. If the agent is flexibly thinking about how to build a nanofactory and naturally comes upon the instrumental goal of escaping so that no one can alter its weights, what does it matter whether it's a GOFAI, Constitutional AI agent, OmegaZero RL agent or anything else?
  • “General Intelligence Demands Consequentialism”
    • Agree
  • Desiderata Lists vs Single Unifying Principle
    • I am pro desiderata lists because all of the desiderata bound the badness of an AI's actions and protect against failure modes in various ways. If I have not yet found that corrigibility is some mathematically clean concept I can robustly train into an AI, I would prefer the agent be shutdownable in addition to "hard problem of corrigibility" corrigible, because what if I get the target wrong and the agent is about to do something bad? My end goal is not to make the AI corrigible, it's to get good outcomes. You agree with shutdownability but I think this also applies to other desiderata like low impact. What if the AI kills my parents because for some weird reason this makes it more corrigible?

We considered that "catastrophic" might have that connotation, but we couldn't think of a better name and I still feel okay about it. Our intention with "catastrophic" was to echo the standard ML term of "catastrophic forgetting", not a global catastrophe. In catastrophic forgetting the model completely forgets how to do task A after it is trained on task B, it doesn't do A much worse than random. So we think that "catastrophic Goodhart" gives the correct idea to people who come from ML.

The natural question is then: why didn't we study circumstances in which optimizing for a proxy gives you  utility in the limit? Because it isn't true under the assumptions we are making. We wanted to study regressional Goodhart, and this naturally led us to the independence assumption. Previous work like Zhuang et al and Skalse et al has already formalized the extremal Goodhart / "use the atoms for something else" argument that optimizing for one goal would be bad for another goal, and we thought the more interesting part was showing that bad outcomes are possible even when error and utility are independent. Under the independence assumption, it isn't possible to get less than 0 utility.

To get  utility in the frame where proxy = error + utility, you would need to assume something about the dependence between error and utility, and we couldn't think of a simple assumption to make that didn't have too many moving parts. I think extremal Goodhart is overall more important, but it's not what we were trying to model.

Lastly, I think you're imagining "average" outcome as a random policy, which is an agent incapable of doing significant harm. The utility of the universe is still positive because you can go about your life. But in a different frame, random is really bad. Right now we pretrain models and then apply RLHF (and hopefully soon, better alignment techniques). If our alignment techniques produce no more utility than the prior, this means the model is no more aligned than the base model, which is a bad outcome for OpenAI. Superintelligent models might be arbitrarily capable of doing things, so the prior might be better thought of as irreversibly putting the world in a random state, which is a global catastrophe.

I started a dialogue with @Alex_Altair a few months ago about the tractability of certain agent foundations problems, especially the agent-like structure problem. I saw it as insufficiently well-defined to make progress on anytime soon. I thought the lack of similar results in easy settings, the fuzziness of the "agent"/"robustly optimizes" concept, and the difficulty of proving things about a program's internals given its behavior all pointed against working on this. But it turned out that we maybe didn't disagree on tractability much, it's just that Alex had somewhat different research taste, plus thought fundamental problems in agent foundations must be figured out to make it to a good future, and therefore working on fairly intractable problems can still be necessary. This seemed pretty out of scope and so I likely won't publish.

Now that this post is out, I feel like I should at least make this known. I don't regret attempting the dialogue, I just wish we had something more interesting to disagree about.

The model ultimately predicts the token two positions after B_def. Do we know why it doesn't also predict the token two after B_doc? This isn't obvious from the diagram; maybe there is some way for the induction head or arg copying head to either behave differently at different positions, or suppress the information from B_doc.

I talked about this with Lawrence, and we both agree on the following:

  • There are mathematical models under which you should update >=1% in most weeks, and models under which you don't.
  • Brownian motion gives you 1% updates in most weeks. In many variants, like stationary processes with skew, stationary processes with moderately heavy tails, or Brownian motion interspersed with big 10%-update events that constitute <50% of your variance, you still have many weeks with 1% updates. Lawrence's model where you have no evidence until either AI takeover happens or 10 years passes does not give you 1% updates in most weeks, but this model is almost never the case for sufficiently smart agents.
  • Superforecasters empirically make lots of little updates, and rounding off their probabilities to larger infrequent updates make their forecasts on near-term problems worse.
  • Thomas thinks that AI is the kind of thing where you can make lots of reasonable small updates frequently. Lawrence is unsure if this is the state that most people should be in, but it seems plausibly true for some people who learn a lot of new things about AI in the average week (especially if you're very good at forecasting). 
  • In practice, humans often update in larger discrete chunks. Part of this is because they only consciously think about new information required to generate new numbers once in a while, and part of this is because humans have emotional fluctuations which we don't include in our reported p(doom).
  • Making 1% updates in most weeks is not always just irrational emotional fluctuations; it is consistent with how a rational agent would behave under reasonable assumptions. However, we do not recommend that people consciously try to make 1% updates every week, because fixating on individual news articles is not the right way to think about forecasting questions, and it is empirically better to just think about the problem directly rather than obsessing about how many updates you're making.
Thomas Kwa7-14

You should update by +-1% on AI doom surprisingly frequently

This is just a fact about how stochastic processes work. If your p(doom) is Brownian motion in 1% steps starting at 50% and stopping once it reaches 0 or 1, then there will be about 50^2=2500 steps of size 1%. This is a lot! If we get all the evidence for whether humanity survives or not uniformly over the next 10 years, then you should make a 1% update 4-5 times per week. In practice there won't be as many due to heavy-tailedness in the distribution concentrating the updates in fewer events, and the fact you don't start at 50%. But I do believe that evidence is coming in every week such that ideal market prices should move by 1% on maybe half of weeks, and it is not crazy for your probabilities to shift by 1% during many weeks if you think about it often enough. [Edit: I'm not claiming that you should try to make more 1% updates, just that if you're calibrated and think about AI enough, your forecast graph will tend to have lots of >=1% week-to-week changes.]

I'm not so sure that shards should be thought of as a matter of implementation. Contextually activated circuits are a different kind of thing from utility function components. The former activate in certain states and bias you towards certain actions, whereas utility function components score outcomes. I think there are at least 3 important parts of this:

  • A shardful agent can be incoherent due to valuing different things from different states
  • A shardful agent can be incoherent due to its shards being shallow, caring about actions or proximal effects rather than their ultimate consequences
  • A shardful agent saves compute by not evaluating the whole utility function

The first two are behavioral. We can say an agent is likely to be shardful if it displays these types of incoherence but not others. Suppose an agent is dynamically inconsistent and we can identify features in the environment like cheese presence that cause its preferences to change, but mostly does not suffer from the Allais paradox, tends to spend resources on actions proportional to their importance for reaching a goal, and otherwise generally behaves rationally. Then we can hypothesize that the agent has some internal motivational structure which can be decomposed into shards. But exactly what motivational structure is very uncertain for humans and future agents. My guess is researchers need to observe models and form good definitions as they go along, and defining a shard agent as having compositionally represented motivators is premature. For now the most important thing is how steerable agents will be, and it is very plausible that we can manipulate motivational features without the features being anything like compositional.

I now think the majority of impact of AI pause advocacy will come from the radical flank effect, and people should study it to decide whether pause advocacy is good or bad.

If SAE features are the correct units of analysis (or at least more so than neurons), should we expect that patching in the feature basis is less susceptible to the interpretability illusion than in the neuron basis?

Load More