I think there may have been some miscommunication here, either I’m not understanding you or you’re not understanding me, so I’ll explain my second paragraph point in a different way in case it was my mistake.
My model is that at lower levels of AI, ‘misalignment’ will be measurable but not catastrophic. It would look like producing an advertising campaign that is funny but does not feature the product, or a tool that is very cheap but very useless. Any misunderstanding of human preferences will lead to failure, so either humans will improve their ability to understand and communicate with AI, or vice versa, but it will happen by necessity of getting AI to do anything.
The problem with asking the AI how it will solve your problem is that if it is misaligned, it will just lie to you if that helps it complete its objective more effectively.
That’s why you make its goal to communicate what it would do, not to actually do the thing. Which I guess is based on the assumptions that oracular AI can be created, and we have enough time to build the superintelligence, and then use the superintelligence to align itself.
On a side note, I enjoyed the article. My answer to the problem would be more testing, more training, and always using hypotheticals. I don’t see why you couldn’t ask an AI to predict what it would do if you gave it a particular goal system and let it out of the box.
Also, I don’t think it’s an argument against any one theory of AI, it seems like a general problem “AI can misunderstand humans and their reactions.” That problem can be mitigated, prevented, and backdoored, but it doesn’t seem like the problem or solutions differ among AI systems, no? If EY’s style of alignment wouldn’t have that problem, I might need it explained to me how that would be the case.
I think the question of you/Adele miscommunicating is mostly under-specification of what features you want your test-AGI to have.
If you throttle its ability to optimize for its goals, see EY and Adele’s arguments.
If you don’t throttle in this way, you run into goal-specification/constraint-specification issues, instrumental convergence concerns and everything that goes along with it.
I think most people here will strongly feel a (computationally) powerful AGI with any incentives is scary, and that any test-versions should require using at-most a much-less-powerful one.
Sorry if I’ve misunderstood you at all.
If you specify the nature of/goals/constraints etc of your test-AI more specifically, maybe I or someone else can try to give you more specific failure-modes.
I think there may have been some miscommunication here, either I’m not understanding you or you’re not understanding me, so I’ll explain my second paragraph point in a different way in case it was my mistake.
My model is that at lower levels of AI, ‘misalignment’ will be measurable but not catastrophic. It would look like producing an advertising campaign that is funny but does not feature the product, or a tool that is very cheap but very useless. Any misunderstanding of human preferences will lead to failure, so either humans will improve their ability to understand and communicate with AI, or vice versa, but it will happen by necessity of getting AI to do anything.
That’s why you make its goal to communicate what it would do, not to actually do the thing. Which I guess is based on the assumptions that oracular AI can be created, and we have enough time to build the superintelligence, and then use the superintelligence to align itself.
On a side note, I enjoyed the article. My answer to the problem would be more testing, more training, and always using hypotheticals. I don’t see why you couldn’t ask an AI to predict what it would do if you gave it a particular goal system and let it out of the box.
Also, I don’t think it’s an argument against any one theory of AI, it seems like a general problem “AI can misunderstand humans and their reactions.” That problem can be mitigated, prevented, and backdoored, but it doesn’t seem like the problem or solutions differ among AI systems, no? If EY’s style of alignment wouldn’t have that problem, I might need it explained to me how that would be the case.
I think the question of you/Adele miscommunicating is mostly under-specification of what features you want your test-AGI to have.
If you throttle its ability to optimize for its goals, see EY and Adele’s arguments.
If you don’t throttle in this way, you run into goal-specification/constraint-specification issues, instrumental convergence concerns and everything that goes along with it.
I think most people here will strongly feel a (computationally) powerful AGI with any incentives is scary, and that any test-versions should require using at-most a much-less-powerful one.
Sorry if I’ve misunderstood you at all. If you specify the nature of/goals/constraints etc of your test-AI more specifically, maybe I or someone else can try to give you more specific failure-modes.