CEO at Redwood Research.
AI safety is a highly collaborative field—almost all the points I make were either explained to me by someone else, or developed in conversation with other people. I’m saying this here because it would feel repetitive to say “these ideas were developed in collaboration with various people” in all my comments, but I want to have it on the record that the ideas I present were almost entirely not developed by me in isolation.
I’ve talked to a lot of people who have left leading AI companies for reasons related to thinking that their company was being insufficiently cautious. I wouldn’t usually say that they’d left “in protest”; for example, most of them haven’t directly criticized the companies after leaving.
In my experience, the main reason that most of these people left was that they found it very unpleasant to working there and thought their research would be better elsewhere, not that they wanted to protest poor safety policies per se. I usually advise such people against leaving if the company has very few safety staff, but it depends on their skillset.
(These arguments don’t apply to Anthropic: there are many people there who I think will try to implement reasonable safety techniques, so on the current margin, the benefits to safety technique implementation of marginal people seems way lower. It might still make sense to work at Anthropic, especially if you think it’s a good place to do safety research that can be exported.)
Incidentally, I’m happy to talk to people who are considering leaving AI companies and give them much more specific advice.
Many more than two safety-concerned people have left AI companies for reasons related to thinking that those companies are reckless.
Some tweets I wrote that are relevant to this post:
In general, AI safety researchers focus way too much on scenarios where there’s enough political will to adopt safety techniques that are seriously costly and inconvenient. There’s a couple reasons for this.
Firstly, AI company staff are disincentivized from making their companies look reckless, and if they give accurate descriptions of the amount of delay that the companies will tolerate, it will sound like they’re saying the company is reckless.
Secondly, safety-concerned people outside AI companies feel weird about openly discussing the possibility of AI companies only adopting cheap risk mitigations, because they’re scared of moving the Overton window and they’re hoping for a door-in-the-face dynamic.
So people focus way more on safety cases and other high-assurance safety strategies than is deserved given how likely they seem. I think that these dynamics have skewed discourse enough that a lot of “AI safety people” (broadly interpreted) have pretty bad models here.
I appreciate the spirit of this type of calculation, but think that it’s a bit too wacky to be that informative. I think that it’s a bit of a stretch to string these numbers together. E.g. I think Ryan and Tom’s predictions are inconsistent, and I think that it’s weird to identify 100%-AI as the point where we need to have “solved the alignment problem”, and I think that it’s weird to use the Apollo/Manhattan program as an estimate of work required. (I also don’t know what your Manhattan project numbers mean: I thought there were more like 2.5k scientists/engineers at Los Alamos, and most of the people elsewhere were purifying nuclear material)
I also loved this doc.
IIRC, for most attention heads the max attention is way less than 90%, so my answer is “no”. It should be very easy to get someone to make a basic graph of this for you.
Yeah I strongly disagree that this failure mode is very likely to be very hard to mostly resolve. I’m doing some research right now that will hopefully shed some light on this!
My sense is that the control techniques we’ve talked about (e.g. these, and some other stuff that we’ve thought of since then) would indeed drastically reduce the risk posed by those Von Neumanns, especially if you run control evaluations with the Von Neumanns.
For example, consider the problem “I want to ask the AI a question that has a numerical answer and that would take a human 8 hours to answer, and I’m worried that occasionally on a subdomain of its choice it will blatantly lie to me”. If you do no countermeasures, it seems easy for the AI to cause this problem. But if you ask the AI for a justification of its reasoning, and run it twice on the original question and a rephrasing/transformation of the question, it seems way intuitively hard for it to come up with consistent explanations that lead to consistent shared wrong answers (e.g. I think Von Neumann would have substantial trouble with that). So I think that adopting well-tuned variations of basic techniques seems really promising.
In your post, you emphasize the slop problem. I think that the slop problem is probably much harder to solve if those AIs are scheming. I guess you’re saying that it’s just unlikely that the AIs are scheming at the point where you’re worried about the slop problem?
Yeah, John’s position seems to require “it doesn’t matter whether huge numbers of Von Neumann level AGIs are scheming against you”, which seems crazy to me.
People will sure be scared of AI, but the arms race pressure will be very strong, and I think that is a bigger consideration
I think criticisms from people without much of a reputation are often pretty well-received on LW, e.g. this one.
I am additionally leery on AI control beyond my skepticism of its value in reducing doom because creating a vast surveillance and enslavement apparatus to get work out of lots and lots of misaligned AGI instances seems like a potential moral horror.
I am very sympathetic to this concern, but I think that when you think about the actual control techniques I’m interested in, they don’t actually seem morally problematic except inasmuch as you think it’s bad to frustrate the AI’s desire to take over.
Note also that it will probably be easier to act cautiously if you don’t have to be constantly in negotiations with an escaped scheming AI that is currently working on becoming more powerful, perhaps attacking you with bioweapons, etc!
I think I would feel better about this if control advocates were clear that their strategy is two-pronged, and included somehow getting a pause on ASI development of some kind. Then they would at least be actively trying to make what I would consider one of the most key conditionals for control substantially reducing doom hold.
Idk, I think we’re pretty clear that we aren’t advocating “do control research and don’t have any other plans or take any other actions”. For example, in the Implications and proposed actions section of “The case for ensuring that powerful AIs are controlled”, we say a variety of things about how control fits into our overall recommendations for mitigating AI risk, most relevantly:
We expect it to be impossible to ensure safety without relying on alignment (or some other non-black-box strategy) when working with wildly superintelligent AIs because black-box control approaches will depend on a sufficiently small gap in capabilities between more trusted labor, both humans and trusted weaker AIs, and our most capable AIs. For obvious reasons, we believe that labs should be very wary of building wildly superintelligent AIs that could easily destroy humanity if they tried to, and we think they should hold off from doing so as long as a weaker (but still transformatively useful) AI could suffice to solve critical problems. For many important uses of AI, wildly superintelligent AI likely isn’t necessary, so we might be able to hold off on building wildly superintelligent AI for a long time. We think that building transformatively useful AI while maintaining control seems much safer and more defensible than building wildly superintelligent AI.
We think the public should consider asking labs to ensure control and avoid building wildly superintelligent AI. In the slightly longer term, we think that requirements for effective control could be a plausible target of regulation or international agreement.
It’s usually the case that online conversations aren’t for persuading the person you’re talking to, they’re for affecting the beliefs of onlookers.
Yep, I think that at least some of the 10 would have to have some serious hustle and political savvy that is atypical (but not totally absent) among AI safety people.
What laws are you imagine making it harder to deploy stuff? Notably I’m imagining these people mostly doing stuff with internal deployments.
I think you’re overfixating on the experience of Google, which has more complicated production systems than most.