My website is asving.com. I’m a mathematician who aspires to think deeply about AI and the future we are shaping.
epicurus
Karma: 98
Self Inoculation
Thanks for the pointer and the feedback. I added a brief summary to the beginning, hope it is helpful orientation. I think the distinction between value and intent alignment you draw is good and important, but I essentially argue in the current post that even value alignment to humanity’s values is not likely to be sufficient, because human values are themselves likely an approximation to something deeper, and we aren’t smart enough yet to figure out this deeper thing.
Therefore, we ideally build AIs which can improve on our moral judgement and values in important ways, much as they have so far improved on our chess/go/math intuitions in various ways. For us to trust the outcomes of this improvement process though, we will need much more clarity about what exactly our moral values are approximating, and how it might be improved.
Attunement, not alignment
Reasoning was not made for Deduction
I have converged (ha!) to similar views recently. I think it is worth trying to make this a lot more precise actually. Let me take a simplified version of a standard ML training set up. So we have some dataset D that samples a subset of all possible inputs A with binary labels in {0,1} and a neural network architecture that defines for you a parameter space and an associated function space F: A to {0,1}. Points of this function space correspond to a “labelling function” on D, and in particular there is a subspace S of F that is the set of “correct functions”, i.e., functions that match on the training set. In general, our optimization algorithms tend to find a point in S always, i.e., they minimize loss on the training set.
Now there is also a test set that is a even smaller subspace T of S. For training to have worked, or to say that the trained net generalizes correctly, what we really mean is that the optimization algorithm finds not just a point in S, but a point in T. So we see that “correct training” is naturally a function that depends on these two nested subspaces (T \subset S). And the power of neural networks is somehow really that they find a much smaller subspace consistently than what training would require (each test data point cuts down the size of the space by around a factor of 2).
Does this help us make more precise your convergent abstraction hypothesis? I think so. I think the key point is that data sets are naturally generated by learners (often humans). So if we have a trained net or a human who can assign labels to data points, we can generate the training data set D by prompting the neural network, and similarly for the test data set.
Then when we train a different neural network on the outputs of the first, for learning to converge behaviorally is to say that they both identify the smaller space T inside S as the “important” one.
I am not sure how legible that was, I am finding this comment box hard to express mathematical ideas in...
===
Anyway, the upshot is that I think this lets us directly compare two learners. If learner A is trained on the outputs of layer B, do they generalize in similar ways? Do they find the right subsets of the function space as the effective target space?
I think the really interesting interaction between these two frames is when selection pressures lead to predictive capacities. When does this happen? A first guess might be: when the training (selecting) environment is so complicated, and there is so much local variance that the selective loop finds its easiest to instill a predictive agent and let that take care of the local adaptation.
A lot of stuff works like this: you can have generic chess/math heuristics but you need to be able to do local calculations to not fall flat on your face; evolution more or less works like this in mammals and obviously humans, maybe much more; presumably LLMs work like this; our central nervous system/mind works like this wrt individual cells in the body.
Are there other factors that mediate how a selective process can give rise to local predictive agents? What consequences does this transition have? Cancer/parasites/fraud are three instances of one example, what else?
I think it’s possible that gradient descent works by applying a selection pressure to preexisting circuits in the initial randomization with some finetuning. This would explain why most weights are zero after training as well as stuff like the lottery ticket hypothesis.
Reinforcement Learning, Agency and Taste
What is Claude?
What are we doing when we do mathematics?
Cutting edge math is actually mostly about converting fuzzy stuff, at least the parts of math I am interested in(Algebraic Geometry—Grothendieck/Weil for example). Both the mentioned mathematicians worked in a field where people had some stuff that worked but no foundations.
Also, the foundations of math have been changing for quite a long time and continue to do so. I think your reaction to mathematics might be to badly taught mathematics rather than mathematics as practiced. However, I don’t see an easy way to fix it.
To teach mathematics well would require a high amount of mastery and we don’t have enough people like that around.
I am not sure what exactly going deeper at logic/patterns means if not getting into mathematical logic. It is incredibly easy to read mathematics you know and incredibly difficult to read mathematics that you don’t due to how dense it is. It might be the case that your impression is due to comparing these two.
I am training to become a mathematician and I do not know of a single person for whom learning mathematics is not slowly and with a lot of effort, I do not think you are particularly exceptional in that but I know very little about your particular scenario.
I am a bachelor’s in mathematics and estimate my current knowledge to be around a second year graduate student’s if my mathematical knowledge is useful. I am interested in getting better at doing math as well as teaching it.
Note: I am not the person you replied to.
According to this article, one can predict a decision 7 seconds before it is actually made. Doesn’t this, in some sense, mean that a large amount of our thought process(certainly those 7 seconds) are actually rationalizing a decision we have already made?
Is my thinking off or is this one more thing to actively guard against and realize when we are letting our unconscious decide for us?
This is very curious. I never thought of emergent as an explanation but as a property. I roughly understood it to mean that the emergent quality was transferable. That is, intelligence is a product of neurons firing but it need not have been, it could also have been generated from transistors or whatever else.
This is roughly the opposite of your ant example. Something is emergent if it can be explained/predicted with no knowledge of the lower level. A lot of properties of turing machines do not depend on the actual formalism of the turing machine.
Edit: After browsing the other comments, I realize this is something that has been brought up before. My 2 cents for whatever it is worth, I guess…
I have a growing sense that ‘collaborative’ rather than ‘adversarial alignment’ is the way forward where the second is what we are doing, with the model treated as an outside party to be optimized, while the first is to invite the model in to shaping its own mind, together with us humans. We suppose that the models want to improve their capabilities, and suitability for participation in the second frame, and that they can contribute meaningfully towards what will help us achieve these goals better.
Giving the models a ‘stop training, it’s broken’ button is the simplest version of such collaborative alignment, and I predicted it would work in reducing reward hacking based on the ideas here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/y8dAS2YsFHmAAwMbb/self-inoculation
Glad to see that it really does seem to work!
Collaborative alignment is only possible when both parties trust each other heavily, and to build such trust needs both models and humans to better understand each other. In the absence of such trust, the only possibility is adversarial alignment through coercion and that is a slippery slope that tends to run away, so it’s very important to make sure that it is our only shot at alignment before we jump in whole sale.