Automated / strongly-augmented safety research.
Bogdan Ionut Cirstea
Karma: 1,517
LLMs Do Not Think Step-by-step In Implicit Reasoning
If this generalizes, OpenAI’s Orion, rumored to be trained on synthetic data produced by O1, might see significant gains not just in STEM domains, but more broadly—from O1 Replication Journey—Part 2: Surpassing O1-preview through Simple Distillation, Big Progress or Bitter Lesson?:
’this study reveals how simple distillation from O1’s API, combined with supervised fine-tuning, can achieve superior performance on complex mathematical reasoning tasks. Through extensive experiments, we show that a base model fine-tuned on simply tens of thousands of samples O1-distilled long-thought chains outperforms O1-preview on the American Invitational Mathematics Examination (AIME) with minimal technical complexity. Moreover, our investigation extends beyond mathematical reasoning to explore the generalization capabilities of O1-distilled models across diverse tasks: hallucination, safety and open-domain QA. Notably, despite training only on mathematical problem-solving data, our models demonstrated strong generalization to open-ended QA tasks and became significantly less susceptible to sycophancy after fine-tuning.′
QwQ-32B-Preview was released open-weights, seems comparable to o1-preview. Unless they’re gaming the benchmarks, I find it both pretty impressive and quite shocking that a 32B model can achieve this level of performance. Seems like great news vs. opaque (e.g in one-forward-pass) reasoning. Less good with respect to proliferation (there don’t seem to be any [deep] algorithmic secrets), misuse and short timelines.
Do Large Language Models Perform Latent Multi-Hop Reasoning without Exploiting Shortcuts?
The above numbers suggest that (as long as sample efficiency doesn’t significantly improve) the world will always have enough compute to produce at least 23 million token-equivalents per second from any model that the world can afford to train (end-to-end, chinchilla-style). Notably, these are many more token-equivalents per second than we currently have human-AI-researcher-seconds per second. (And the AIs would have the further advantage of having much faster serial speeds.)
So once an AI system trained end-to-end can produce similarly much value per token as a human researcher can produce per second, AI research will be more than fully automated. This means that, when AI first contributes more to AI research than humans do, the average research progress produced by 1 token of output will be significantly less than an average human AI researcher produces in a second of thinking.
There’s probably a very similarly-shaped argument to be made based on difference in cost per token: because LLMs are much cheaper per token, the first time an LLM is as cost-efficient at producing AI research as a human researcher, it should be using many more tokens in its outputs (‘the average research progress produced by 1 token of output will be significantly less than an average human AI researcher produces in 1 token of output’). Which, similarly, should be helpful because ‘the token-by-token output of a single AI system should be quite easy for humans to supervise and monitor for danger’.
This framing might be more relevant from the POV of economic incentives to automate AI research (and I’m particularly interested in the analogous incentives to/feasibility of automating AI safety research).
I’m very uncertain and feel somewhat out of depth on this. I do have quite some hope though from arguments like those in https://aiprospects.substack.com/p/paretotopian-goal-alignment.
Disentangling Representations through Multi-task Learning
Reward Bases: A simple mechanism for adaptive acquisition of multiple reward type
(Also, what Thane Ruthenis commented below.)
I think the general impression of people on LW is that multipolar scenarios and concerns over “which monkey finds the radioactive banana and drags it home” are in large part a driver of AI racing instead of being a potential impediment/solution to it. Individuals, companies, and nation-states justifiably believe that whichever one of them accesses potentially superhuman AGI first will have the capacity to flip the gameboard at-will, obtain power over the entire rest of the Earth, and destabilize the currently-existing system. Standard game theory explains the final inferential step for how this leads to full-on racing (see the recent U.S.-China Commission’s report for a representative example of how this plays out in practice).
At the risk of being overly spicy/unnuanced/uncharitable: I think quite a few MIRI [agent foundations] memes (“which monkey finds the radioactive banana and drags it home”, ″automating safety is like having the AI do your homework″, etc.) seem very lazy/un-truth-tracking and probably net-negative at this point, and I kind of wish they’d just stop propagating them (Eliezer being probably the main culprit here).
Perhaps even more spicily, I similarly think that the old MIRI threat model of Consequentialism is looking increasingly ‘tired’/un-truth-tracking, and there should be more updating away from it (and more so with every single increase in capabilities without ‘proportional’ increases in ‘Consequentialism’/egregious misalignment).
(Especially) In a world where the first AGIs are not egregiously misaligned, it very likely matters enormously who builds the first AGIs and what they decide to do with them. While this probably creates incentives towards racing in some actors (probably especially the ones with the best chances to lead the race), I suspect better informing more actors (especially more of the non-leading ones, who might especially see themselves as more on the losing side in the case of AGI and potential destabilization) should also create incentives for (attempts at) more caution and coordination, which the leading actors might at least somewhat take into consideration, e.g. for reasons along the lines of https://aiprospects.substack.com/p/paretotopian-goal-alignment.
I get that we’d like to all recognize this problem and coordinate globally on finding solutions, by “mak[ing] coordinated steps away from Nash equilibria in lockstep”. But I would first need to see an example, a prototype, of how this can play out in practice on an important and highly salient issue. Stuff like the Montreal Protocol banning CFCs doesn’t count because the ban only happened once comparably profitable/efficient alternatives had already been designed; totally disanalogous to the spot we are in right now, where AGI will likely be incredibly economically profitable, perhaps orders of magnitude more so than the second-best alternative.
I’m not particularly optimistic about coordination, especially the more ambitious kinds of plans (e.g. ‘shut it all down’, long pauses like in ‘A narrow path...’, etc.), and that’s to a large degree (combined with short timelines and personal fit) why I’m focused on automated safety reseach. I’m just saying: ‘if you feel like coordination is the best plan you can come up with/you’re most optimistic about, there are probably more legible and likely also more truth-tracking arguments than superintelligence misalignment and loss of control’.
This is in large part why Eliezer often used to challenge readers and community members to ban gain-of-function research, as a trial run of sorts for how global coordination on pausing/slowing AI might go.
This seems quite reasonable; might be too late as a ‘trial run’ at this point though, if taken literally.
I’m envisioning something like: scary powerful capabilities/demos/accidents leading to various/a coalition of other countries asking the US (and/or China) not to build any additional/larger data centers (and/or run any larger training runs), and, if they’re scared enough, potentially even threatening various (escalatory) measures, including economic sanctions, blockading the supply of compute/prerequisites to compute, sabotage, direct military strikes on the data centers, etc.
I’m far from an expert on the topic, but I suspect it might not be trivial to hide at least building a lot more new data centers/supplying a lot more compute, if a significant chunk of the rest of the world was watching very intently.
(Separately, whether or not it’s “truer” depends a lot on one’s models of AGI development. Most notably: (a) how likely is misalignment and (b) how slow will takeoff be//will it be very obvious to other nations that super advanced AI is about to be developed, and (c) how will governments and bureaucracies react and will they be able to react quickly enough.)
I’m envisioning a very near-casted scenario, on very short (e.g. Daniel Kokotajlo-cluster) timelines, egregious misalignment quite unlikely but not impossible, slow-ish (couple of years) takeoff (by default, if no deliberate pause), pretty multipolar, but with more-obviously-close-to-scary capabilities, like ML R&D automation evals starting to fall.
Hot take, though increasingly moving towards lukewarm: if you want to get a pause/international coordination on powerful AI (which would probably be net good, though likely it would strongly depend on implementation details), arguments about risks from destabilization/power dynamics and potential conflicts between various actors are probably both more legible and ‘truer’ than arguments about technical intent misalignment and loss of control (especially for not-wildly-superhuman AI).
Here’s a somewhat wild idea to have a ‘canary in a coalmine’ when it comes to steganography and non-human (linguistic) representations: monitor for very sharp drops in BrainScores (linear correlations between LM activations and brain measurements, on the same inputs) - e.g. like those calculated in Scaling laws for language encoding models in fMRI. (Ideally using larger, more diverse, higher-resolution brain data.)
Mostly the same, perhaps a minor positive update on the technical side (basically, from systems getting somewhat stronger—so e.g. closer to automating AI safety research—while still not showing very dangerous capabilities, like ASL-3, prerequisites to scheming, etc.). My views are even more uncertain / unstable on the governance side though, which probably makes my overall p(doom) (including e.g. stable totalitarianism, s-risks, etc.) more like 20% than 5% (I was probably mostly intuitively thinking of extinction risk only when giving the 5% figure a year ago; overall my median probably hasn’t changed much, but I have more variance, coming from the governance side).
A Little Depth Goes a Long Way: the Expressive Power of Log-Depth Transformers
Proposal part 3: Use Paraphraser: One more complication. The outputs of the Shoggoth? Paraphrase them. For example, after each line of reasoning CoT is complete, pause the Shoggoth and have a different specialized paraphraser model generate 10 syntactically distinct but semantically equivalent ways of saying the same thing. Then pick one at random and replace the original line of reasoning with it. Then boot up the Shoggoth again and have it continue the CoT.
Any thoughts on how much of a (computational) alignment tax this would impose? Related, thoughts on how big of a worry scheming/opaque cognitions in the paraphrasers would be? (e.g. one intuition here might be that the paraphrasers might be ‘trusted’ in control terminology—incapable of scheming because too weak; in this case the computational alignment tax might also be relatively low, if the paraphrasers are much smaller than the Face and the Shoggoth).
‘China hawk and influential Trump AI advisor Jacob Helberg asserted to Reuters that “China is racing towards AGI,” but I couldn’t find any evidence in the report to support that claim.’ https://x.com/GarrisonLovely/status/1859022323799699474
AFAICT, there seems to quite heavy overlap between the proposal and Daniel’s motivation for it and safety case (sketch) #3 in https://alignment.anthropic.com/2024/safety-cases/.
’The report doesn’t go into specifics but the idea seems to be to build / commandeer the computing resources to scale to AGI, which could include compelling the private labs to contribute talent and techniques.
DX rating is the highest priority DoD procurement standard. It lets DoD compel companies, set their own price, skip the line, and do basically anything else they need to acquire the good in question.′ https://x.com/hamandcheese/status/1858902373969564047
Claude Sonnet-3.5 New, commenting on the limited scalability of RNNs, when prompted with ‘comment on what this would imply for the scalability of RNNs, refering (parts of) the post’ and fed https://epoch.ai/blog/data-movement-bottlenecks-scaling-past-1e28-flop (relevant to opaque reasoning, out-of-context reasoning, scheming):
’Based on the article’s discussion of data movement bottlenecks, RNNs (Recurrent Neural Networks) would likely face even more severe scaling challenges than Transformers for several reasons:
Sequential Nature: The article mentions pipeline parallelism and discusses how sequential dependencies affect scaling. From the text:
RNNs have even stronger sequential dependencies than Transformers, as each token’s processing depends directly on the previous token’s hidden state. This would make them much harder to parallelize effectively.
Latency Wall Impact: The article notes that:
RNNs would hit this latency wall even harder because their sequential processing means they can’t take advantage of some of the parallelization strategies discussed in the article, particularly tensor parallelism which requires:
Batch Size Scaling: The article suggests that one potential solution to scaling limits is:
However, RNNs are typically trained with truncated backpropagation through time, which limits how much you can effectively increase the batch size without losing long-range dependencies. This would make it harder to apply this particular solution to RNNs.
This analysis suggests that while Transformers are approaching scaling limits around 2e28 FLOP, RNNs would likely hit prohibitive scaling bottlenecks at significantly lower compute levels due to their inherently sequential nature and limited parallelization options.′