Programme Director at UK Advanced Research + Invention Agency focusing on safe transformative AI; formerly Protocol Labs, FHI/Oxford, Harvard Biophysics, MIT Mathematics And Computation.
davidad
Karma: 2,141
OAA bypasses the accident version of this by only accepting arguments from a superintelligence that have the form “here is why my proposed top-level plan—in the form of a much smaller policy network—is a controller that, when combined with the cyberphysical model of an Earth-like situation, satisfies your pLTL spec.” There is nothing normative in such an argument; the normative arguments all take place before/while drafting the spec, which should be done with AI assistants that are not smarter-than-human (CoEm style).
There is still a misuse version: someone could remove the provision in 5.1.5 that the model of Earth-like situations should be largely agnostic about human behavior, and instead building a detailed model of how human nervous systems respond to language. (Then, even though the superintelligence in the box would still be making only descriptive arguments about a policy, the policy that comes out would likely emit normative arguments at deployment time.) Superintelligence misuse is covered under problem 11.
If it’s not misuse, the provisions in 5.1.4-5 will steer the search process away from policies that attempt to propagandize to humans.
It is often considered as such, but my concern is less with “the alignment question” (how to build AI that values whatever its stakeholders value) and more with how to build transformative AI that probably does not lead to catastrophe. Misuse is one of the ways that it can lead to catastrophe. In fact, in practice, we have to sort misuse out sooner than accidents, because catastrophic misuses become viable at a lower tech level than catastrophic accidents.
That being said— I don’t expect existing model-checking methods to scale well. I think we will need to incorporate powerful AI heuristics into the search for a proof certificate, which may include various types of argument steps not limited to a monolithic coarse-graining (as mentioned in my footnote 2). And I do think that relies on having a good meta-ontology or compositional world-modeling framework. And I do think that is the hard part, actually! At least, it is the part I endorse focusing on first. If others follow your train of thought to narrow in on the conclusion that the compositional world-modeling framework problem, as Owen Lynch and I have laid it out in this post, is potentially “the hard part” of AI safety, that would be wonderful…
I think you’re directionally correct; I agree about the following:
A critical part of formally verifying real-world systems involves coarse-graining uncountable state spaces into (sums of subsets of products of) finite state spaces.
I imagine these would be mostly if not entirely learned.
There is a tradeoff between computing time and bound tightness.
However, I think maybe my critical disagreement is that I do think probabilistic bounds can be guaranteed sound, with respect to an uncountable model, in finite time. (They just might not be tight enough to justify confidence in the proposed policy network, in which case the policy would not exit the box, and the failure is a flop rather than a foom.)
Perhaps the keyphrase you’re missing is “interval MDP abstraction”. One specific paper that combines RL and model-checking and coarse-graining in the way you’re asking for is Formal Controller Synthesis for Continuous-Space MDPs via Model-Free Reinforcement Learning.
Yes, the “shutdown timer” mechanism is part of the policy-scoring function that is used during policy optimization. OAA has multiple stages that could be considered “training”, and policy optimization is the one that is closest to the end, so I wouldn’t call it “the training stage”, but it certainly isn’t the deployment stage.
We hope not merely that the policy only cares about the short term, but also that it cares quite a lot about gracefully shutting itself down on time.
There’s something to be said for this, because with enough RLHF, GPT-4 does seem to have become pretty corrigible, especially compared to Bing Sydney. However, that corrigible persona is probably only superficial, and the larger and more capable a single Transformer gets, the more of its mesa-optimization power we can expect will be devoted to objectives which are uninfluenced by in-context corrections.
A system with a shutdown timer, in my sense, has no terms in its reward function which depend on what happens after the timer expires. (This is discussed in more detail in my previous post.) So there is no reason to persuade humans or do anything else to circumvent the timer, unless there is an inner alignment failure (maybe that’s what you mean by “deception instance”). Indeed, it is the formal verification that prevents inner alignment failures.
A list of core AI safety problems and how I hope to solve them
Suppose Training Run Z is a finetune of Model Y, and Model Y was the output of Training Run Y, which was already a finetune of Foundation Model X produced by Training Run X (all of which happened after September 2021). This is saying that not only Training Run Y (i.e. the compute used to produce one of the inputs to Training Run Z), but also Training Run X (a “recursive” or “transitive” dependency), count additively against the size limit for Training Run Z.
Less difficult than ambitious mechanistic interpretability, though, because that requires human comprehension of mechanisms, which is even more difficult.
Compute Thresholds: proposed rules to mitigate risk of a “lab leak” accident during AI training runs
The formal desiderata should be understood, reviewed, discussed, and signed-off on by multiple humans. However, I don’t have a strong view against the use of Copilot-style AI assistants. These will certainly be extremely useful in the world-modeling phase, and I suspect will probably also be worth using in the specification phase. I do have a strong view that we should have automated red-teamers try to find holes in the desiderata.
I think formal verification belongs in the “requires knowing what failure looks like” category.
For example, in the VNN competition last year, some adversarial robustness properties were formally proven about VGG16. This requires white-box access to the weights, to be sure, but I don’t think it requires understanding “how failure happens”.
Yes—assuming that the pause interrupts any anticipatory gradient flows from the continuing agent back to the agent which is considering whether to pause.
This pattern is instantiated in the Open Agency Architecture twice:
Step 2 generates top-level agents which are time-bounded at a moderate timescale (~days), with the deliberation about whether to redeploy a top-level agent being carried out by human operators.
In Step 4, the top-level agent dispatches most tasks by deploying narrower low-level agents with much tighter time bounds, with the deliberation about whether to redeploy a low-level agent being automated by the top-level model.
For what it’s worth, the phrase “night watchman” as I use it is certainly downstream of Nozick’s concept.
Some direct quantitative comparison between activation-steering and task-vector-steering (at, say, reducing toxicity) is indeed a very sensible experiment for a peer reviewer to ask for and I would like to see it as well.
On the object-level, deriving task vectors in weight-space from deltas in fine-tuned checkpoints is really different from what was done here, because it requires doing a lot of backward passes on a lot of data. Deriving task vectors in activation-space, as done in this new work, requires only a single forward pass on a truly tiny amount of data. So the data-efficiency and compute-efficiency of the steering power gained with this new method is orders of magnitude better, in my view.
Also, taking affine combinations in weight-space is not novel to Schmidt et al either. If nothing else, the Stable Diffusion community has been doing that since October to add and subtract capabilities from models.
Thanks for bringing all of this together—I think this paints a fine picture of my current best hope for deontic sufficiency. If we can do better than that, great!
I agree that we should start by trying this with far simpler worlds than our own, and with futarchy-style decision-making schemes, where forecasters produce extremely stylized QURI-style models that map from action-space to outcome-space while a broader group of stakeholders defines mappings from output-space to each stakeholder’s utility.
That’s basically correct. OAA is more like a research agenda and a story about how one would put the research outputs together to build safe AI, than an engineering agenda that humanity entirely knows how to build. Even I think it’s only about 30% likely to work in time.
I would love it if humanity had a plan that was more likely to be feasible, and in my opinion that’s still an open problem!