it will derive as much utility from a successful blow up as from a failed blow up (in less correct but more intuitive terms, you could say “Papey acts as if it doesn’t believe the explosives will work”).
Those are quite different. In one case, you’re adjusting its utility function. In the other, you’re adjusting its expectations. (And the remainder of your post indicates that you intend to adjust the AI’s expectations of what will happen, and don’t care about its utility function.)
Now, that might work. If the AI is self-modifying, then it might notice that that part of its planning function is obviously incorrect and fix it. It might simulate human responses to its proposed actions and notice that there are problematic conflicts around that area. But there’s at least a chance that the AI will not notice that.
I wouldn’t want to trust my life to it, but it’s got a shot of working.
The method is entirely about adjusting the utility function, not the expectations, as I explained in the paper. And the adjustments are ideally to be made from the very start, so that the AI never has cause to fear subsequent adjustment to its utility.
Rereading the paper, it looks like you’re mucking about with utility, not expected utility. So let’s see how this works out in practice.
You assign the AI a task of finding a cure for cancer. This will net it 10 utilons if it succeeds. Thanks to your utility indifference module, it will also net 10 utilons if it does not find a cure for cancer and you trigger the explosives to kill the AI.
The AI does a preliminary estimate to see its odds of success for the relevant outcomes. It can find a cure for cancer with 80% likelihood. It can cause you to trigger the explosives and kill the AI with 90% likelihood.
The expected utility for attempting to cure cancer is 8. The expected utility for attempting suicide is 9.
It seems pretty straightforward and easy to pose as a mad, dangerous AI about to destroy the world, at least well enough to make a human panic and hit the emergency destruct button. I’m sure I could convince you to kill me, if you just had to push a button. It seems a lot less certain that the AI would be able to solve the problems given it, since those problems will be things that humans haven’t been able to solve, and since the AI will be under various other restrictions to keep it safe.
You assign the AI a task of finding a cure for cancer. This will net it 10 utilons if it succeeds. Thanks to your utility indifference module, it will also net 10 utilons if it does not find a cure for cancer and you trigger the explosives to kill the AI.
The AI gets nothing from you deciding to kill it. What utility indifference means is that it will get the same utility if you decide to kill it, and the explosives go off, as if you decided to kill it, and the explosives failed to go off.
So if it expects to cure cancer with 80% likelihood if it survives, and thus get 8 utilitons, then if if dies from the explosion, it will also get 8 utilitons.
More precisely there are six worlds, depending on a) whether we trigger the explosives or not, b) whether it survives the explosion or not, and c) whether cancer is curable by an unmolested AI. In obvious notation, these are TSC, TS¬C, T¬SC, T¬S¬C, ¬TC, ¬T¬C. We are assuming in your example that U(¬T¬C)=U(TS¬C)=0 and U(¬TC)=U(TSC)=10. Utility indifference then sets U(T¬S¬C)=0 and U(T¬SC)=10.
Hence assuming that S is independent of C (the curability of cancer by an unmolested AI is independent of whether particular explosives go off), we see that the AI is indifferent as to whether the explosives go off—it gains nothing either way, so has no cause to influence the explosives in any direction. If we further assume T and C are independent (the curability of cancer by an unmolested AI is independent of whether we decide to blow up this particular AI), then the AI also has no preference as to whether we trigger the explosives or not—it gains nothing either way.
Ah, that makes sense. It isn’t indifferent to suicide as such; it’s only indifferent to your success at attempting to kill it, should you make the attempt.
Those are quite different. In one case, you’re adjusting its utility function. In the other, you’re adjusting its expectations. (And the remainder of your post indicates that you intend to adjust the AI’s expectations of what will happen, and don’t care about its utility function.)
Now, that might work. If the AI is self-modifying, then it might notice that that part of its planning function is obviously incorrect and fix it. It might simulate human responses to its proposed actions and notice that there are problematic conflicts around that area. But there’s at least a chance that the AI will not notice that.
I wouldn’t want to trust my life to it, but it’s got a shot of working.
The method is entirely about adjusting the utility function, not the expectations, as I explained in the paper. And the adjustments are ideally to be made from the very start, so that the AI never has cause to fear subsequent adjustment to its utility.
Rereading the paper, it looks like you’re mucking about with utility, not expected utility. So let’s see how this works out in practice.
You assign the AI a task of finding a cure for cancer. This will net it 10 utilons if it succeeds. Thanks to your utility indifference module, it will also net 10 utilons if it does not find a cure for cancer and you trigger the explosives to kill the AI.
The AI does a preliminary estimate to see its odds of success for the relevant outcomes. It can find a cure for cancer with 80% likelihood. It can cause you to trigger the explosives and kill the AI with 90% likelihood.
The expected utility for attempting to cure cancer is 8. The expected utility for attempting suicide is 9.
It seems pretty straightforward and easy to pose as a mad, dangerous AI about to destroy the world, at least well enough to make a human panic and hit the emergency destruct button. I’m sure I could convince you to kill me, if you just had to push a button. It seems a lot less certain that the AI would be able to solve the problems given it, since those problems will be things that humans haven’t been able to solve, and since the AI will be under various other restrictions to keep it safe.
The AI gets nothing from you deciding to kill it. What utility indifference means is that it will get the same utility if you decide to kill it, and the explosives go off, as if you decided to kill it, and the explosives failed to go off.
So if it expects to cure cancer with 80% likelihood if it survives, and thus get 8 utilitons, then if if dies from the explosion, it will also get 8 utilitons.
More precisely there are six worlds, depending on a) whether we trigger the explosives or not, b) whether it survives the explosion or not, and c) whether cancer is curable by an unmolested AI. In obvious notation, these are TSC, TS¬C, T¬SC, T¬S¬C, ¬TC, ¬T¬C. We are assuming in your example that U(¬T¬C)=U(TS¬C)=0 and U(¬TC)=U(TSC)=10. Utility indifference then sets U(T¬S¬C)=0 and U(T¬SC)=10.
Hence assuming that S is independent of C (the curability of cancer by an unmolested AI is independent of whether particular explosives go off), we see that the AI is indifferent as to whether the explosives go off—it gains nothing either way, so has no cause to influence the explosives in any direction. If we further assume T and C are independent (the curability of cancer by an unmolested AI is independent of whether we decide to blow up this particular AI), then the AI also has no preference as to whether we trigger the explosives or not—it gains nothing either way.
Ah, that makes sense. It isn’t indifferent to suicide as such; it’s only indifferent to your success at attempting to kill it, should you make the attempt.
Thanks for your patience!
No prob :-) Always happy when I manage to explain something successfully!