Andrew Critch on AI Research Considerations for Human Existential Safety

 Topics discussed in this episode include:

  • The mainstream computer science view of AI existential risk
  • Distinguishing AI safety from AI existential safety 
  • The need for more precise terminology in the field of AI existential safety and alignment
  • The concept of prepotent AI systems and the problem of delegation 
  • Which alignment problems get solved by commercial incentives and which don’t
  • The threat of diffusion of responsibility on AI existential safety considerations not covered by commercial incentives
  • Prepotent AI risk types that lead to unsurvivability for humanity 

 

Timestamps: 

0:00 Intro
2:53 Why Andrew wrote ARCHES and what it’s about
6:46 The perspective of the mainstream CS community on AI existential risk
13:03 ARCHES in relation to AI existential risk literature
16:05 The distinction between safety and existential safety
24:27 Existential risk is most likely to obtain through externalities
29:03 The relationship between existential safety and safety for current systems
33:17 Research areas that may not be solved by natural commercial incentives
51:40 What’s an AI system and an AI technology?
53:42 Prepotent AI
59:41 Misaligned prepotent AI technology
01:05:13 Human frailty
01:07:37 The importance of delegation
01:14:11 Single-single, single-multi, multi-single, and multi-multi
01:15:26 Control, instruction, and comprehension
01:20:40 The multiplicity thesis
01:22:16 Risk types from prepotent AI that lead to human unsurvivability
01:34:06 Flow-through effects
01:41:00 Multi-stakeholder objectives
01:49:08 Final words from Andrew

 

Citations:

AI Research Considerations for Human Existential Safety

 

We hope that you will continue to join in the conversations by following us or subscribing to our podcasts on Youtube, Spotify, SoundCloud, iTunes, Google Play, StitcheriHeartRadio, or your preferred podcast site/application. You can find all the AI Alignment Podcasts here.

You can listen to the podcast above or read the transcript below. 

Lucas Perry: Welcome to the AI Alignment Podcast. I’m Lucas Perry. Today we have a conversation with Andrew Critch where we explore a recent paper of his titled AI Research Considerations for Human Existential Safety, which he co-authored with David Krueger. In this episode, we discuss how mainstream computer science views AI existential risk, we develop new terminology for this space and discuss the need for more precise concepts in the field of AI existential safety, we get into which alignment problems and areas of AI existential safety Andrew expects to be naturally solved by industry and which won’t, and we explore the risk types of a new concept Andrew introduces, called prepotent AI, that lead to unsurvivability for humanity. 

I learned a lot from Andrew in this episode and found this conversation to be quite perspective shifting. I think Andrew offers an interesting and useful critique of existing discourse and thought, as well as new ideas. I came away from this conversation especially valuing thought around the issue of which alignment and existential safety issues will and will not get solved naturally by industry and commercial incentives. The answer to this helps to identify crucial areas we should be mindful to figure out how to address outside the normal incentive structures of society, and that to me seems crucial for mitigating AI existential risk. 

If you don’t already subscribe or follow this podcast, you can follow us on your preferred podcasting platform, like Apple Podcasts or Spotify, by searching for The Future of Life. 

Andrew Critch is currently a full-time research scientist in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences department at UC Berkeley, at Stuart Russell’s Center for Human Compatible AI. He earned his PhD in mathematics at UC Berkeley studying applications of algebraic geometry to machine learning models. During that time, he cofounded the Center for Applied Rationality and Summer Program on Applied Rationality and Cognition. Andrew has been offered university faculty positions in mathematics and mathematical biosciences, worked as an algorithmic stock trader at Jane Street Capital‘s New York City office, and as a research fellow at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute. His current research interests include logical uncertainty, open source game theory, and avoiding arms race dynamics between nations and companies in AI development.

And with that, let’s get into our conversation with Andrew Critch.

We’re here today to discuss your paper, AI Research Considerations for Human Existential Safety. You can shorten that to ARCHES. You wrote this with David Krueger and it came out at the end of May. I’m curious and interested to know what your motivation is for writing ARCHES and what it’s all about.

Andrew Critch:

Cool. Thanks, Lucas. It’s great to be here. For me, it’s pretty simple. Is that I care about existential safety. I want humans to be safe as a species. I don’t want human extinction to ever happen. And so I decided to write a big, long document about that with David. And of course, why now and why these particular problems, I can go more into that.

You might wonder if existential risk from AI is possible, how have we done so much AI research with so little technical level thought about how that works and how to prevent it? And to me, it seems like the culture of computer science and actually a lot of STEM has been to always talk about the benefits of science. Except in certain disciplines that are well accustomed to talking about risks like medicine, a lot of science just doesn’t talk about what could go wrong or how it could be misused.

It hasn’t been until very recently that computer science has really started making an effort as a culture to talk about how things could go wrong in general. Forget x-risk, just anything going wrong. And I’m just going to read out loud this quote to sort of set the context culturally for where we are with computer science right now and how far culturally we are from being able to really address existential risk holistically.

This is a quote from Hecht at the ACM Future of Computing Academy. It came out in 2018, just two years ago. “The current status quo in the computing community is to frame our research by extolling its anticipated benefits to society. In other words, rose colored glasses are the normal lenses through which we tend to view our work. However, one glance at the news these days reveals that focusing exclusively on the positive impacts of a new computing technology involves considering only one side of a very important story. We believe that this gap represents a serious and embarrassing intellectual lapse. The scale of this lapse is truly tremendous. It is analogous to the medical community, only writing about the benefits of a given treatment, completely ignoring the side effects, no matter how serious they are.

What’s more, the public has definitely caught on to our community-wide blind spot and is understandably suspicious of it. After several months of discussion, and idea for acting on this imperative began to emerge. We can leverage the gate keeping functionality of the peer review process. At a high level, our recommended change to the peer review process in computing is straightforward. Peer reviewers should require that papers and proposals rigorously consider all reasonable, broader impacts, both positive and negative.” That’s Hecht, 2018.

With this energy, this initiative from the ACM and other similar mentalities around the world, we now have NeurIPS Conference submissions required to submit broader impact statements that include negative impacts as well as positive.

Suddenly in 2020, contrasted with 2015, it’s becoming okay and normal to talk about how your research could be misused and what could go wrong with it. And we’re just barely able to admit things like, “This algorithm could result in racial bias in judiciary hearings,” or something like that. Which is a terrible, terrible … The fact that we’ve taken this long to admit that and talk about it is very bad. And that’s something as present and obvious as racism. Whereas, existential risk has never been … Extinction has never been present or else we wouldn’t be having this conversation. And so those conversations are even harder to have when it’s not normal to talk about bad outcomes at all. Let alone obvious, in your face, bad outcomes.

Lucas Perry: Yeah. On this podcast, we’re basically only talking to people who are in the AI alignment community and who take x-risk very seriously, who are worried about existential risk from advanced AI systems.

And so we lack a lot of this perspective … Or we don’t have many conversations with people who take the cultural, and I guess, academic perspective of the mainstream machine learning and computer science community. Which is far larger and has much more inertia and mass than the AI alignment community.

I’m curious if you can just paint a little bit more of a picture here of what the state of computer science thinking or non-thinking is on AI existential risk? You mentioned that recently people are starting to at least encourage and it be required as part of a process to have negative impact statements or write about the risks of a technology one is developing. But that’s still not talking about global catastrophic risk. It’s still not talking about alignment explicitly. It’s not talking about existential risk. It seems like a step in the right direction, but some ways to go. What kind of perspective can you give us on all this?

Andrew Critch: I think of sort of EA adjacent to AI researchers as kind of a community, to the extent that EA is a community. And it’s not exactly the same set of people as AI researchers who think about existential risk or AI researchers who think about alignment. Which is yet another set of people. What overlaps heavily, but it’s not the same set.

And I have noticed a tendency that I’m trying to combat here by raising this awareness, not only to computer scientists, but to EA adjacent AI folks. Which is that if you feel sort of impatient, that computer science and AI are not acknowledging existential risks from tech, things are underway and there’s ways of making things better and making things worse.

One way to make things worse is to get irate with people, for caring about risks that you think aren’t big enough. Okay. If you think inequitable loan distribution is not as bad as human extinction, many people might agree with you, but if you’re irate about that and saying, “Why are we talking about that when we should be talking about extinction?” You’re slowing down the process of computer science, transitioning into a more negative outcome-aware field by refusing to cooperate with other people who are trying to raise awareness about negative outcomes.

I think there’s a push to be more aware of negative outcomes and all the negative outcome people need to sort of work together politely, but swiftly, raising the bar for our discourse about negative outcomes. And I think existential risks should be part of that, but I don’t think it should be adversarially positioned relative to other negative outcomes. I think we just need to raise the bar for all of these at once.

And all of these issues have the same enemy, which is those rose colored glasses that wrote all of our grant applications for the past 50 years. Every time you’re asking for public funds, you say how this is going to benefit society. And you better not mention how it might actually make society worse or else you won’t get your grant. Right?

Well, times are changing. You’re allowed to mention and signal awareness of how your research could make things worse. And that’s starting to be seen as a good trait rather than a reason not to give you funding. And if we all work together to combat that rose colored glass problem, it’s going to make everything easier to talk about, including existential risk.

Lucas Perry: All right. So if one goes to NeurIPS and talks to any random person about existential risk or AI alignment or catastrophic risk from AI, what is the average reaction or assumed knowledge or people who think it’s complete bullshit versus people who are neutral about it to people who are serious about it?

Andrew Critch: Definitely my impression right now, this is very rough impression. There’s a few different kinds of reactions that are all like sort of double digits percentage. I don’t know which percentage they are, but one is like, how are you worried about existential risks when robots can’t tie knots yet? Or they can’t fold laundry. It’s like a very difficult research problem for an academic AI lab to make a robot fold laundry. So it’s like, come on. We’re so far away from that.

Another reaction is, “Yeah, that’s true. You know, I mean things are really taking off. They’re certainly progressing faster than I expected. Things are kind of crazy.” It’s the things that are kind of crazy reaction and there’s just kind of an open-mindedness. Man, anything could happen. We could go extinct in 50 years, we can go extinct. I don’t know what’s going to happen. Things are crazy.

And then there’s another reaction. Unfortunately, this one’s really weird. I’ve gotten this one, which is, “Well, of course humanity is going to go extinct from the advent of AI technology. I mean, of course. Just think about it from evolutionary perspective. There’s no way we would not go extinct given that we’re making things smarter than us. So of course it’s going to happen. There’s nothing we can do about it. That’s just our job as a field is to make things that are smarter than humans that will eventually replace us and there’ll be better than us. And that’s just how stuff is.”

Lucas Perry: Some people think that’s an aligned outcome.

Andrew Critch: I don’t know. That’s a lot of debate to be had about that. But it’s a kind of defeatist attitude of, “It’s nothing you can do.” It’s much, much rarer. It seems like single digits that someone is like, “Yeah, we’re going to do something about it.” That one is the rarest, the acknowledging and orienting towards solving it is still pretty rare. But there’s plenty these days of acknowledgement that it could be real and acknowledgement that it’s confusing and hard. The challenge is somehow way more acknowledged than any particular approach to it.

Lucas Perry: Okay. I guess that’s surprising to hear then that you feel like it’s more taken seriously than not.

Andrew Critch: It depends on what you mean by taken seriously. And again, I’m filtering for a person who’s being polite and talking to me about it, right? People are polite enough to fall into the, “Stuff is crazy. Who knows what could happen,” attitude.

And is that taking it seriously? Well, no, but it’s not adversarial to people who are taking it seriously, which I think is really good. And then there’s the, “Clearly we’re going to be destroyed by machines that replace us. That’s just nature.” Those voices, I’m kind of like, well, that’s kind of good also. It’s good to admit that there’s a real risk here. It’s kind of bad to give up on it, in my opinion. But altogether, if you add up the, “Woah, stuff’s crazy and we’re not really oriented to it,” plus the, “Definitely humanity is going to be destroyed/replaced.” It’s a solid chunk of people. I don’t know. I’m going to say at least 30%. If you also then include the people who want to try and do something about it. Which is just amazing compared to say six years ago where the answer would have been round to zero percent.

Lucas Perry: Then just to sum up here, this paper then is an exercise in trying to lay out a research agenda for existential safety from AI systems, which is unique in your view? I think you mentioned that there are four that have already existed to this day.

Andrew Critch: Yeah. There’s Aligning Superintelligence with Human Interests, by Soares and Fallenstein, that’s MIRI, basically. Then there’s Research Priorities for A Robust And Beneficial Artificial Intelligence, by Stuart Russell, Max Tegmark, and Daniel Dewey. Then there’s Concrete Problems in AI Safety, by Dario Amodei and others. And then Alignment for Advanced Machine Learning Systems, by Jessica Taylor and others. And Scalable Alignment Via Reward Modeling by Jan Leike and also David Krueger is on that one.

Lucas Perry: How do you see your paper as fitting in with all of the literature that already exists on the problem of AI alignment and AI existential risk?

Andrew Critch: Right. So it’s interesting you say that there exists literature on AI existential risk. I would say Superintelligence, by Nick Bostrom, is literature on AI existential risk, but it is not a research agenda.

Lucas Perry: Yeah.

Andrew Critch: I would say Aligning Superintelligence with Human Interests, by Soares and Fallenstein. It’s a research agenda, but it’s not really about existential risk. It sort of mentions that stakes are really high, but it’s not constantly staying in contact with the concept of extinction throughout.

If you take a random excerpt of any page from it and pretend that it’s about the Netflix challenge or building really good personal assistants or domestic robots, you can succeed. That’s not a critique. That’s just a good property of integrating with research trends. But it’s not about the concept of existential risk. Same thing with Concrete Problems in AI Safety.

In fact, it’s a fun exercise to do. Take that paper. Pretend you think existential risk is ridiculous and read Concrete Problems in AI Safety. It reads perfectly as you don’t need to think about that crazy stuff, let’s talk about tipping over vases or whatever. And that’s a sign that it’s an approach to safety that it’s going to be agreeable to people, whether they care about x-risk or not. Whereas, this document is not going to go down easy for someone who’s not willing to think about existential risk and it’s trying to stay constantly in contact with the concept.

Lucas Perry: All right. And so you avoid making the case for AI x-risk as valid and as a priority, just for the sake of the goal of the document succeeding?

Andrew Critch: Yeah. I want readers to spend time inhabiting the hypothetical that existential risk is real and can come from AI and can be addressed through research. They’re already taking a big step by constantly thinking about existential risk for these 100 pages here. I think it’s possible to take that step without being convinced of how likely the existential risk is. And I’m hoping that I’m not alienating anybody if you think it’s 1%, but it’s worth thinking about. That’s good. If you think it’s 30% chance of existential risk from AI, then it’s worth thinking about. That’s good, too. If you think it’s 0.01, but you’re still thinking about it, you’re still reading it. That’s good, too. And I didn’t want to fracture the audience based on how probable people would agree the risks are.

Lucas Perry: All right. So let’s get into the meat of the paper, then. It would be useful, I think, if you could help clarify the distinction between safety and existential safety.

Andrew Critch: Yeah. So here’s a problem we have. And when I say we, I mean people who care about AI existential safety. Around 2015 and 2016, we had this coming out of AI safety as a concept. Thanks to Amodei and the Robust and Beneficial AI Agenda from Stuart Russell, talking about safety became normal. Which was hard to accomplish before 2018. That was a huge accomplishment.

And so what we had happen is people who cared about extinction risk from artificial intelligence would use AI safety as a euphemism for preventing human extinction risk. Now, I’m not sure that was a mistake, because as I said, prior to 2018, it was hard to talk about negative outcomes at all. But it’s at this time in 2020 a real problem that you have people … When they’re thinking existential safety, they’re saying safety, they’re saying AI safety. And that leads to sentences like, “Well, self driving car navigation is not really AI safety.” I’ve heard that uttered many times by different people.

Lucas Perry: And that’s really confusing.

Andrew Critch: Right. And it’s like, “Well, what is AI safety, exactly, if cars driven by AI, not crashing, doesn’t count as AI safety?” I think that as described, the concept of safety usually means minimizing acute risks. Acute meaning in space and time. Like there’s a thing that happens in a place that causes a bad thing. And you’re trying to stop that. And the Concrete Problems in AI Safety agenda really nailed that concept.

And we need to get past the concept of AI safety in general if what we want to talk about is societal scale risk, including existential risk. Which it’s acute on a geological time scale. Like you can look at a century before and after and see the earth is very different. But a lot of ways you can destroy the earth don’t happen like a car accident. They play out over a course of years. And things to prevent that sort of thing are often called ethics. Ethics are principles for getting a lot of agents to work together and not mess things up for each other.

And I think there’s a lot of work today that falls under the heading of AI ethics that are really necessary to make sure that AI technology aggregated across the earth, across many industries and systems and services, will not result collectively in somehow destroying humanity, our environment, our minds, et cetera.

To me, existential safety is a problem for humanity on an existential timescale that has elements that resemble safety in terms of being acute on a geological timescale. But also resemble ethics in terms of having a lot of agents, a lot of different stakeholders and objectives mulling around and potentially interfering with each other and interacting in complicated ways.

Lucas Perry: Yeah. Just to summarize this, people were walking around saying like, “I work on AI safety.” But really, that means that I’ve bought into AI existential risk and I work on AI existential risk. And then that’s confusing for everyone else, because working on the personal scale risk of self-driving car safety is also AI safety.

We need a new word, because AI safety really means acute risks, which can range from personal all the way to civilizational or transgenerational. And so, it’s confusing to say I work in AI safety, but really what I mean is only I care about transgenerational, AI existential risk.

Andrew Critch: Yes.

Lucas Perry: Then we have this concept of existential safety, which for you both has this portion of us not going extinct, but also existential safety includes the normative and ethics and values and game theory and how it is that an ecosystem of human and nonhuman agents work together to build a thriving civilization that is existentially preferable to other civilizations.

Andrew Critch: I agree 100% with everything you just said, except for the part where you say “existentially preferable.” I prefer to use existential safety to refer really, to preserving existence. And I prefer existential risk to refer to extinction. That’s not how Bostrom uses the term. And he introduced the term, largely, and he intends to include risks that are as important as extinction, but aren’t extinction risks.

And I think that’s interesting. I think that’s a good category of risks to think about and deserving of a name. I think, however, that there’s a lot more debate about what is or isn’t as bad as extinction. Whereas, there’s much less debate about what extinction is. There still is debate. You can say, “Well, what about if we become uploads, whatever.” But there’s much, much more uncertainty about what’s worse or better than extinction.

And so I prefer to focus existential safety on literally preventing extinction and then use some other concept, like societal scale risk, for referring to risks that are really big on a societal scale that may or may not pass the threshold of being worse or better than extinction.

I also care about societal scale risks and I don’t want people working on preventing societal scale risks to be fractured based on whether they think any particular risk, like lots of sentient suffering AI systems or a totalitarian regime that lasts forever. I don’t want people working to prevent those outcomes to be fractured based on whether or not they think those outcomes are worse than extinction or count as a quote, unquote existential risk. When I say existential risk, I always mean risks to the existence of the human species, for simplicity sake.

Lucas Perry: Yeah. Because Bostrom’s definition of an existential risk is any risk such that if it should occur, would permanently and drastically curtail the potential for earth originating, intelligent life. Which would include futures of deep suffering or futures of being locked into some less than ideal system.

Andrew Critch: Yeah. Potential not only measured in existence, but potential measured in value. And if you’re suffering, the value of your existence is lower.

Lucas Perry: Yeah. And that there are some futures where we still exist, where they’re less preferable to extinction.

Andrew Critch: Right.

Lucas Perry: You want to say, okay, there are these potential suffering risks and there are bad futures of disvalue that are maybe worse than extinction. We’re going to call all these societal risks. And then we’re just going to have existential risk or existential safety refer to us not going extinct?

Andrew Critch: I think that’s especially necessary in computer science. Because if anything seems vague or unrefined, there’s a lot of allergy to it. I try to pick the most clearly definable thing, like are humans there or not? That’s a little bit easier for people to wrap their heads around.

Lucas Perry: Yeah. I can imagine how in the hard sciences people would be very allergic to anything that was not sufficiently precise. One final distinction here to make is that one could say, instead of saying, “I work on AI safety,” “I work on AI existential safety or AI civilizational or societal risk.” But another word here is, “I work on AI alignment.” And you distinguish that from AI delegation. Could you unpack that a little bit more and why that’s important to you?

Andrew Critch: Yeah. Thanks for asking about that. I do think that there’s a bit of an issue with the “AI alignment” concept that makes it inadequate for existential risk reduction. AI existential safety is my goal. And I think AI alignment, the way people usually think about it, is not really going to cut it for that purpose.

If we’re successful as a society in developing and rolling out lots of new AI technologies to do lots of cool stuff, it’s going to be a lot of stakeholders in that game. It’s going to be what you might call massively multipolar. And in that economy or society, a lot of things can go wrong through the aggregate behavior of individually aligned systems. Like just take pollution, right? No one person wants everybody else to pollute the atmosphere, but they’re willing to do it themselves. Because when Alice pollutes the atmosphere, Alice gets to work on time or Alice gets to take a flight or whatever.

And she harms everybody in doing that, including herself. But the harm to herself is so small. It’s just a drop in the bucket that’s spread across everybody else. You do yourself a benefit and you do a harm that outweighs that benefit, but it’s spread across everybody and accrues very little harm specifically to you. That’s the problem with externalities.

I think existential risk is most likely to obtain through externalities, between interacting systems that somehow were not designed to interact well enough because they had different designers or they had different stakeholders behind them. And those competitive effects, like if you don’t take a car, everyone else is going to take a car you’re going to fall behind. So you take a car. If you’re a country, right? If you don’t burn fossil fuels, well, you spend a few years transitioning to clean energy and you fall behind economically. You’re taking a hit and that hurts you more than anybody. Of course, it benefits the whole world if you cut your carbon emissions, but it’s just a big prisoner’s dilemma. So you don’t do it. No one does it.

There’s many, many other variables that describe the earth. This comes to the human fragility thesis, which I and David outlined in the paper. Which is that there’s many variables, which if changed, can destroy humanity. And any of those variables could be changed in ways that don’t destroy machines. And so we are at risk of machine economies operating in ways that keep on operating at the expense of humans that aren’t needed for them being destroyed. That is the sort of backdrop for why I think delegation is a more important concept than alignment.

Delegation is a relationship between groups of people. You’ll often have a board of directors that delegates through a CEO to an entire staff. And I want to evoke that concept, the relationship between a group of overseers and a group of doers. You can have delegates on a UN committee from many different countries. You’ve got groups delegating to individuals to serve as part of a group who are going to delegate to a staff. There’s this constant flow through of responsibility. And it’s not even acyclic. You’ve got elected officials who are delegated by the electorate who delegate staff to provide services to the electorate, but also to control the electorate.

So there’s these loops going around. And I think I want to draw attention to all of the delegation relationships that are going to exist in the future economy. And that already exist in the present economy of AI technologies. When you pay attention to all of those different pathways of delegation, you realize there’s a lot of people in institutions with different values that aren’t going to agree with each other on what counts as aligned.

For example, for some people, it’s aligned to take a 1% chance of dying to double your own lifespan. Some people are like, “Yeah, that’s totally worth it.” And for some people, they’re like, “No 1% dying. That’s scary and I’m pretty happy living 80 years.” And so what sort of societal scale risks are worth taking are going to be subject to a lot of disagreement.

And the idea that there’s this thing called human values, that we’re all in agreement about. And there’s this other thing called AI that just has to do with the human value says. And we have to align the AI with human values. It’s an extremely simplified story. It’s got two agents and it’s just like one big agent called the humans. And then there’s this one big agent called AIs. And we’re just trying to align them. I think that is not the actual structure of the delegation relationship that humans and AI systems are going to have with respect to each other in the future. And I think alignment is helpful for addressing some delegation relationships, but probably not the vast majority.

Lucas Perry: I see where you’re coming from. And I think in this conception alignment, as you said, I believe is a sub category of delegation.

Andrew Critch: Well, I would say that alignment is a sub problem of most delegation problems, but there’s not one delegation problem. And I would also say alignment is a tool or technique for solving delegation problems.

Lucas Perry: Okay. Those problems all exist, but actually doing AI alignment, that automatically brings in delegation problems. And, or if you actually align a system, then this system is aligned with how we would want to solve delegation problems.

Andrew Critch: Yeah. That’s right. One approach to solving AI delegation, you might think, “Yeah, we’re going to solve that problem by first inventing a superintelligent machine.” Like step one, invent your super intelligent oracle machine step two align your super intelligent oracle machine with you, the creator. Step three, ask it to solve for society. Just figure out how society should be structured. Do that. That’s a mathematically valid approach. I just don’t think that’s how it’s going to turn out. The closer powerful institutions get to having super powerful AI systems, political tensions are going to arise.

Lucas Perry: So we have to do the delegation problem as we’re going?

Andrew Critch: Yes, we have to do it as we’re going, 100%.

Lucas Perry: Okay.

Andrew Critch: And if we don’t, we put institutions at odds with each other to win the race of being the one chosen entity that aligns the one chosen superintelligence with their values or plan for the future or whatever. And I just think that’s a very non-robust approach to the future.

Lucas Perry: All right. Let’s pivot here then back into existential safety and normal AI safety. What do you see as the relationship between existential safety and safety for present day AI systems? Does safety for present day AI systems feed into existential safety? Can it inform existential safety? How much does one matter for the other?

Andrew Critch: The way I think of it, it’s a bit of a three node diagram. There’s present day AI safety problems, which I believe feed into existential safety problems somewhat. Meaning that some of the present day solutions will generalize to the existential safety problems.

There’s also present day AI ethics problems, which I think also feed into understanding how a bunch of agents can delegate to each other and treat each other well in ways that are not going to add up to destructive outcomes. That also feeds into existential safety.

And just to give concrete examples, let’s take car doesn’t crash, right? What does that have in common with existential safety? Well, existential safety is humanity doesn’t crash. There’s a state space. Some of the states involve humanity exists. Some of the states involve humanity doesn’t exist. And we want to stay in the region of state space where humans exist.

Mathematically, it’s got something in common with the staying in the region of state space where the car is on the road and not overheating, et cetera, et cetera. It’s a dynamical system. And it’s got some quantities that you want to conserve and there’s conditions or boundaries you want to avoid. It has this property just like culturally, it has the property of acknowledging a negative outcome and trying to avoid it. That’s, to me, the main thing that safety and existential safety have in common, avoiding a negative outcome. So is ethics about avoiding negative outcomes. And I think those both are going to flow into existential safety.

Lucas Perry: Are there some more examples you can make for current day AI safety problems and current day AI ethics problems, just make it a bit more concrete? How does something like robustness to distributional shift take us from aligned systems today to systems that have existential safety in the future?

Andrew Critch: So, conceptually, robustness to distributional shift is about, you’ve got some function that you want to be performed or some condition you want to be met, and then the environment changes or the inputs change significantly from when you created the system, and then you still want it to maintain those conditions or achieve the goal.

So, for example, if you have a car trained, “To drive in dry conditions,” and then it starts raining, can you already have designed your car by principles that would allow it to not catastrophically fail in the rain? Can it notice, “Oh gosh, this is real different from the way I was trained. I’m going to pull over, because I don’t know how to drive in the rain.” Or can it learn, on the fly, how to drive in the rain and then get on with it?

So those are kinds of robustness to distributional shift. The world changes. So, if you want something that’s safe and stays safe forever, it has to account for the world changing. So, principles of robustness to distributional shift are principles by which society, as a whole, needs to adhere. Now, do I think research in this area is differentially useful to existential risk?

No. Frankly, not at all. And the reason is that industry has loads of incentives to produce software that are robust to a changing environment. So, if on the margin I could add an idea to the idea space of robustness to distributional shift, I’m like, “Well, I don’t think there’s any chance that Uber is going to ignore robustness to distributional shift, or that Google is going to ignore, or Amazon.” There’s no way these companies are going to roll out products while not thinking about whether they’re robust.

On the other hand, if I have a person who wants to dwell on the concept of robustness, who cares about existential risk and who wants to think about how robustness even works, like what are the mathematical principles of robustness? We don’t fully know what they are. If we did, we’d have built self driving cars already.

So, if I have a person who wants to think about that concept because it applies to society, and they want a job while they think about it, sure, get a job producing robust software or robust robotics, or get a bunch of publications in that area, but it’s not going to be neglected. It’s more of a mental exercise that can help you orient and think about society through a new lens, once you understand that lens, rather than a thing that somehow DeepMind is going to forget that it’s products need to be robust, come on.

Lucas Perry: So, that’s an interesting point. So, what are technical research areas, or areas in terms of AI ethics that you think there will not be natural incentives for solving, but that are high impact and important for AI existential safety?

Andrew Critch: To be clear, before I go into saying these areas are important, these areas aren’t, I do want to distinguish the claim area X is a productive place to be if you care about existential risk from, area X is an area that needs more ideas to solve existential safety. I don’t want the people to feel discouraged from going into intellectual disciplines that are really nourishing to the way that you’re going to learn and invent new concepts that help you think forever. And it can be a lot easier to do that in an area that’s not neglected.

So, robustness is not going to be neglected. Alignment, taking an AI system and making it do what a person wants, that’s not going to be neglected, because it’s so profitable. The economy is set up to sell to individual customers, to individual companies. Most of the world economy is anarchic in that way, anarcho-capitalist at a global scale. If you can find someone that you can give something to that they like, then you will.

The Netflix challenge is an AI alignment problem, right? The concept of AI alignment was invented in 2002, and nobody cites it because it’s so obvious of an idea that you have to make your AI do stuff. Still, it was neglected in academia because AI wasn’t super profitable. So, it is true that AI alignment was not a hot area of research in academia, but now, of course, you need AI to learn human preferences. Of course, you need AI to win in the tech sphere. And that second part is new.

So, because AI is taking off industrially, you’ve got a lot more demand for research solutions to, “Okay. How do we actually make this useful to people? How do we get this to do what people want?” And that’s why AI alignment is taking off. It’s not because of existential risk, it’s because well, AI is finally super-duper useful and it’s finally super-duper profitable, if you can just get it to do what the customer wants. So, that’s alignment. That’s what user agent value alignment is called.

Now, is that a productive place to be if you care about existential risks? I think. Yes. Because if you’re confused about what values are and how you could possibly get an inhuman system to align with the values of a human system, like human society, if that basic concept is tantalizing to you and you feel like if you just understood it a bit more, you’d be better mentally equipped to visualize existential risk playing out or not playing it on a societal scale, then yeah, totally go into that problem, think about it. And you can get a job as a researcher or an engineer aligning AI systems with the values of the human beings who use it. And it’s super enriching and hard, but it’s not going to be neglected because of how profitable it is.

Lucas Perry: So what is neglected, or what is going to be neglected?

Andrew Critch: What’s going to be neglected is stuff that’s both hard and not profitable. Transparency, I think, is not yet profitable, but it will be. So it’s neglected now. And when I say it’s not yet profitable, I mean that as far as I know, we don’t have big tech companies crushing their competition by having better visualization techniques for their ML systems. You don’t see advertisements for, “Hey, we’re hiring transparency engineers,” yet.

And so, I take that as a sign that we’ve not yet reached the industrial regime in which the ability for engineers to understand their systems better is the real bottleneck to rolling out the next product. But, I think it will be if we don’t destroy ourselves first. I think there’s a very good chance of that actually playing out.

So I think, if you want an exciting career, get into transparency now. In 10 years, you’ll be in high demand and you’ll have understood a problem that’s going to help humans and machines relate, which is, “Can we understand them well enough to manage them?” There’s other problems, unfortunately, that I think are neglected now and important, and are going to stay neglected. And I think those are the ones that are most likely to kill us.

Lucas Perry: All right, let’s hear them.

Andrew Critch: Things like how do we get multiple AI systems from multiple stakeholders to cooperate with each other? How do you broker a peace treaty between Uber and Waymo cars? That one’s not as hard because you can have the country that allows the cars into it have some regulatory decision that all the cars have to abide by, and now the cars have to get along or whatever.

Or maybe you can get the partnership on AI, which is largely American to agree amongst themselves that there’s some principles, and then the cars adhere to those principles. But it’s much harder on an international scale where there’s no one centralized regulatory body that’s just going to make all the AIs behave this way or that way. And moreover, the people who are currently thinking about that, aren’t particularly oriented towards existential risk, which really sucks.

So, I think what we need, if we get through the next 200 years with AI, frankly, if we get through the next 60 years with AI, it’s going to be because people who cared about existential risk entered institutions with the power to govern the global deployment of AI, or people already with the power to govern the global deployment of AI technologies come to care about existential and comparable societal scale risks. Because without that, I think we’re going to miss the mark.

When something goes wrong and there’s somebody whose job was clearly to make that not happen, it’s a lot easier to get that fixed. Think about people who’ve tried to get medical care since the COVID pandemic. Everybody’s decentralized, the offices are part work from home, partly they’re actually physically in there. So you’re like, “Hey, I need an appointment with a neurologist.” The person whose job it is to make the appointment is not the person whose job it is to tell the doctor that the appointment is booked.

It’s also, there’s someone else’s job is to contact the insurance company and make sure that you’re authorized. And they might be off that day, and then you show up, and you get a big bill and you’re like, “Well, whose fault was this?” Well, it’s your fault because you’re supposed to check that your insurance covered this neurology stuff, right? You could have called your insurance company to pre-authorize this visit.

So it’s your fault. But also, it’s the administrator’s fault that you didn’t talk to that never meets you, whose job is to conduct the pre-authorization on the part of the doctor’s office, which sometimes does it, right? And it’s also the doctor’s fault, because maybe the doctor could have noticed that the authorization hadn’t been done, and didn’t cancel the appointment or warn you that maybe you don’t want to afford this right now. So whose fault is it? Oh, I don’t know.

And if you’ve ever dealt with a big fat bureaucratic failure like this, that is what is going to kill humanity. Everybody knows it’s bad. Nobody in this system, not the insurance company, not the call center that made my appointment, not the insurance specialist at the doctor’s office, certainly not the doctor, none of these people want me not to get healthcare, but it’s no one in particular’s fault. And that’s how it happens.

I think the same thing is going to happen with existential risk. We’re going to have big companies making real powerful AI systems, and it’s going to be really obvious that it is their job to make those systems safe. And there’s going to be a bunch of kinds of safety that’s really obviously their job that people are going to be real angry at them for not paying a lot of attention to. And the anger is just going to get more and more, the more obvious it is that they have power.

That kind of safety, I don’t want to trivialize it. It’s going to be hard. It’s going to be really difficult research and engineering, and it can be really enriching and many, many thousands of people could make their whole careers around making AI safe for big tech companies, according to their accountable definition of safety.

But then what about the stuff they’re not accountable for? What about geopolitics that’s nobody’s fault? What about coordination failures between three different industries, or three different companies that’s nobody’s fault? That’s the stuff that’s going to get you. I think it’s actually mathematically difficult to specify protocols for decentralized multi-agent systems to adhere to constraints. It is more difficult than specifying constraints for a single system.

Lucas Perry: I’m having a little bit of confusion here, because when you’re arguing that alignment questions will be solved via the incentives of just the commercialization of AI.

Andrew Critch: Single-human, single-AI alignment problems or single-institutions, single-network alignment problems. Yes.

Lucas Perry: Okay. But they also might be making single agents for many people, or multiple agents for many people. So it doesn’t seem single-single to me. But the other part is that you’re saying that in a world where there are many competing actors and a diffusion of responsibility, the existential risk comes from obvious things that companies should be doing, but no one is, because maybe someone should make a regulation about this thing but whatever, so we should just keep doing things the way that we are. But doesn’t that come back to commercialization of AI systems not solving all of the AI alignment problems?

Andrew Critch: So if by AI alignment you mean AI technology in aggregate behaves in a way that is favorable to humanity in aggregate. If that’s what you mean, then I agree that failure to align the entire economy of AI technology is a failure of AI alignment. However, number one, people don’t usually think about it that way.

If you asked someone to write down the AI alignment problem, they’ll write down a human utility function and an AI utility function, and talk about aligning the AI utility function with the human utility function. And that’s not what that looks like. That’s not a clear depiction of that super multi-agent scenario.

And, second of all, the concept of AI alignment has been around for decades and it refers to single-single alignment, typically. And third, if you want to co-op the concept of AI alignment and start using it to refer to general alignment of general AI technology with general human values, just as spread out notion of goodness that’s going to get spread over all of the AI technology and make it all generally good for all the generally humans. If you want to co-opt it and use it for that, you’re going to have a hard time. You’re going to invite a lot of debate about what is human values?

We’re trying to align the AI technology with the human values. So, you go from single-single to single-multi. Okay. Now we have multiple AI systems serving a single human, that’s tricky. We got to get the AI systems to cooperate. Okay. Cool. We’ll figure out how the cooperation works and we’ll get the AI systems to do that. Cool. Now we’ve got a fleet of machines that are all serving effectively.

Okay. Now let’s go to multi-human, multi-AI. You’ve got lots of people, lots of AI systems in this hyper interactive relationship. Did we align the AIs with the humans? Well, I don’t know. Are some of the humans getting really poor, really fast, while some of them are getting really rich, really fast? Sound familiar? Okay. Is that aligned? Well, I don’t know. It’s aligned for some of them. Okay. Now we have a big debate. I think that’s a very important debate and I don’t want to skirt it.

However, I think you can ask the question, did the AI technology lead to human extinction without having that debate? And I want to factor that debate of, wait, who do you mean? Who are you aligning with? I want that debate to be had, and I want it to be had separately from the debate of, did it cause human extinction?

Because I think almost all humans want humanity not to go extinct. Some are fine with it, it’s not universal, but a lot of people don’t want humanity to go extinct. I think the alignment concept, if you play forward 10 years, 20 years, it’s going to invite a lot of very healthy, very important debate that’s not necessary to have for existential safety.

Lucas Perry: Okay. So I’m not trying to defend the concept of AI alignment in relation to the concept of AI existential safety. I think what I was trying to point towards is that you said earlier that you do not want to discourage people from going into areas that are not neglected. And the areas that are not neglected are the areas where the commercialization of AI will drive incentives towards solving alignment problems.

Andrew Critch: That’s right.

Lucas Perry: But the alignment problems that are not going to get solved-

Andrew Critch: I want to encourage people to go out to solve those problems. 100%.

Lucas Perry: Yeah. But just to finish the narrative, the alignment problems that are not going to get solved are the ones where there are multiple humans and multiple AI agents, and there’s this diffusion of responsibility you were talking about. And this is the area you said would most likely lead to AI existential risk. Where maybe someone should make a regulation about this specific thing, or maybe we’re competing a little bit too hard, and then something really bad happens. So you’re saying that you do want to push people into both the unneglected area of…

Andrew Critch: Let me just flesh out a little bit more about my value system here. Pushing people is not nice. If there’s a person and they don’t want to do a thing, I don’t want to push them. That’s the first thing. Second thing is, pulling people is not nice either. So it’s like, if someone’s on the way into doing something they’re going to find intellectually enriching that’s going to help them think about existential safety that’s not neglected, it’s popular, it’s going to be popular, I don’t want to hold them back. But, if someone just comes to me and is like, “Hey, I’m indifferent between transparency and robustness.” I’m like, “100%, go into transparency, no question.”

Lucas Perry: Because it will be more neglected.

Andrew Critch: And if someone tells me they’re indifferent between transparency and multi-stakeholder delegation, I’m like, “100%, multi-stakeholder delegation.” If you’ve got traction on that and you’re not going to burn your career, do it.

Lucas Perry: Yeah. That’s the three categories then though. Robustness gets solved by the incentive structures of commercialization. Transparency, maybe less so, maybe it comes later. And then the multi-multi delegation is just the other big neglected problem of living in a global world. So, you’re saying that much of the alignment problem gets solved by incentive structures of commercialization.

Andrew Critch: Well, a lot of what people call alignment will get solved by present day commercial incentives.

Lucas Perry: Yes.

Andrew Critch: Another chunk of societal scale benefit from AI, I’ll say, will hopefully get solved by the next wave of commercial incentives. I’m thinking things like transparency, fairness, accountability, things like that are actually going to become actually commercially profitable to get right, rather than merely the things companies are afraid of getting wrong.

And I hope that second wave happens before we destroy ourselves, because possibly, we would destroy ourselves even before then. But most of my chips are on, there’s going to be a wave of benefit with AI ethics in the next 10 years or something, and that that’s going to solve a bunch more of existential safety, or it’s going to address them. Leftover after that is stuff that the global capitalism never got to.

Lucas Perry: And the things that global capitalism never got to are the capitalistic organizations and governments competing with one another with very strong AI systems?

Andrew Critch: Yeah. Competing and cooperating.

Lucas Perry: Competing and cooperating, unless you bring in some strong notion of paretotopia where everyone is like, “We know that if we keep doing this, that everyone is going to lose everything they care about.”

Andrew Critch: Well, the question is, how do you bring that in? If you solve that problem, you’ve solved it.

Lucas Perry: Okay. So, to wrap up on this then, as companies increasingly are making systems that serve people and need to be able to learn and adopt their values, the incentives of commercialization will continue to solve what are classically AI alignment problems that may also provide some degree of AI existential safety. And there’s the question of how much of those get solved naturally, and how much we’re going to have to do in academia and nonprofit, and then push that into industry.

So we don’t know what that will be, but we should be mindful about what will be solved naturally, and then what are the problems that won’t be, and then how do we encourage or invite more people to go into areas that are less likely to be solved by natural industrial incentives.

Andrew Critch: And do you mean areas of alignment, or areas of existential safety? I’m serious.

Lucas Perry: I know because I’m guilty of not really using this distinction in the past. Both.

Andrew Critch: Got it. I actually think most of single-single alignment. Like there’s a single stakeholder, which might be a human or an institution that has one goal, like profits, right? So there’s a single-human stakeholder, and then there’s a single-AI. I call that single-single alignment. I almost never refer to a multi-multi alignment, because I don’t know what it means and it’s not clear what the values of multiple different stakeholders even is. What are you referring to when you say the values are this function?

So, I don’t say multi-multi alignment a lot, but I do sometimes say single-single alignment to emphasize that I’m talking about the single stakeholder version. I think the multi-multi alignment concept almost doesn’t make sense. So, when someone asks me a question about alignment, I always have to ask, “Now, are you eliding those concepts again?” Or whatever.

So, we could just say single-single alignment every time and I’ll know what you’re talking about, or we could say classical alignment and I’ll probably assume that you mean single-single alignment, because that’s the oldest version of the concept from 2002. So there’s this concept of basic human rights or basic human needs. And that’s a really interesting concept, because it’s a thing that a lot of people agree on. A lot of people think murder is bad.

Lucas Perry: People need food and shelter.

Andrew Critch: Right. So there’s a bunch of that stuff. And we could say that AI alignment is about that stuff and not the other stuff.

Lucas Perry: Is it not about all of it?

Andrew Critch: I’ve seen satisfactory mathematical definitions of intent alignment. Paul Christiano talks about alignment, which I think of as in intent alignment, I think he now also calls it intent alignment, which is the problem of making sure an AI system is intending to help its user. And I think he’s got a pretty clear conception of what that means. I think the concept of the intent alignment of a single-single AI servant is easier to define than whatever property an AI system needs to have.

There’s a bunch of properties that people call AI alignment that are actually all so different from each other. And people don’t recognize that they’re different from each other, because they don’t get into the technical details of trying to define it, so then everyone thinks that we all mean the same thing. But what really is going on, is everyone’s going around thinking, “I want AI to be good, basically good for basically everybody.” No one’s cashing that out, and so nobody notices how much we disagree on what basically good for basically everybody means.

Lucas Perry: So that’s an excellent point, and I’m guilty here now then of having absolutely no idea of what I mean by AI alignment.

Andrew Critch: That’s my goal, because I also don’t know and I’m glad to have a company in that mental state.

Lucas Perry: Yeah. So, let’s try moving long ahead here. And I’ll accept any responsibility and my guilt in using the word AI alignment incorrectly from now on. That was a fun and interesting side road, and I’m glad we pursued it. But now pivoting back into some important definitions here that you also write about in your paper, what counts to you as an AI system and what counts to you as an AI technology, and why does that distinction matter?

Andrew Critch: So throughout the ARCHES report, I’d advocated for using technology versus system. AI technology is like a mass net, and you can say, you can have more of it or less of it. And it’s like this butter that you can spread on the toast of civilization. And AI system, it’s like a countdown. You can have one of them or many of them, and you can put an AI system like you could put a strawberry on your toast, which is different from strawberry jam.

So, there’s properties of AI technology that could threaten civilization and there’s also properties of a single AI system that could threaten civilization. And I think those are both important frames to think in, because you could make a system and think, “This system is not a threat to civilization,” but very quickly, when you make a system, people can copy it. People can replicate it, modify it, et cetera. And then you’ve got a technology that’s spread out like the strawberry has become strawberry compote and spread out over the toast now. And do you want that? Is that good?

As an everyday person, I feel like basic human rights are a well-defined concept to me. Is this basically good for humanity? Is a well defined concept to me, but mathematically it becomes a lot harder to pin down. So I try to say AI technology when I want to remind people that this is going to be replicated, it’s going to show up everywhere. It’s going to be used in different ways by different actors.

At the same time, you can think of the aggregate use of AI technology worldwide as a system. You can say the internet is a system, or you can say all of the self driving cars in the world is one big system built by multiple stakeholders. So I think that the system concept can be reframed to refer to the aggregate of all the technology of a certain type or of a certain kind. But that mental reframe is an actual act of effort, and you can switch between those frames to get different views of what’s going on. I try to alternate and use both of those views from time to time, the system view and the technology view.

Lucas Perry: All right. So let’s get into another concept here that you develop, and it’s really at the core of your paper. What is a prepotent AI? And I guess before you define what a prepotent AI is, can you define what prepotent means? I had actually never heard of that word before reading your paper.

Andrew Critch: So I’m going to say the actual standard definition of prepotent which connotes, arrogance, overbearing high-handed, despotic, possessing excessive abuse of authority. These connotations are carried across a bunch of different Latin languages, but in English they’re not as strong. In English, prepotent just means very powerful, or superior enforced influence, or authority or predominant.

I used it because it’s not that common of a word, but it’s still a word, and it’s a property that AI technology can have relative to us. And it’s also property that a particular AI system, whether it’s singular or distributed can have relative to us. The definition that I’d give for a prepotent AI technology is technology whose deployment would transform humanity’s habitat, which is currently the earth, in a way that’s unstoppable to us.

So there’s this notion of there’s the transformativeness and then there’s the unstoppableness. Transformativeness is a concept that has been also elaborated by the Open Philanthropy Project. They have this transformative AI concept. I think it’s a very good concept, because it’s impact oriented. It’s not about what the AI’s trying to do, it’s about what impact that has. And they say when AI system or technology is transformative, if its impact on the world is comparable to, say the agricultural revolution or the industrial revolution, a major global change in how things are done. You might argue that the internet is a transformative technology as well.

So, that’s the transformative aspect of prepotence. And then there’s the unstoppable aspect. So, imagine something that’s transforming the world the way the agricultural industrial revolution has transformed it, but also, we can’t stop it. And by we, I mean, no subset of humans, if they decided that they want to stop it, could stop it. If every human in the world decided, “Yeah, we all want this to stop,” we would fail.

I think it’s possible to imagine AI technologies that are unstoppable to all subsets of humanity. I mean, there’s things that are hard to stop right now. If you wanted to stop the use of electricity. Let’s say all humans decided, today, for some strange reason that we never want to use electricity anymore. That’d be a difficult transition. I think we probably could do it, but it’d be very difficult. Humanity as a society can become dependent on certain things, or intertwined with things in a way that makes it very hard to stop them. And that’s a major mechanism by which an AI technology can be prepotent, by being intertwined with us and how we use it.

Lucas Perry: So, can you distinguish this idea of prepotent AI, because it’s a completely new concept from transformative AI, as you mentioned before, and superintelligence, and why it’s important to you that you introduced this new concept?

Andrew Critch: Yeah. Sure. So let’s say you have an AI system that’s like a door-to-door salesman for solar panels, and it’s just going to cover everyone’s roofs with solar panels for super cheap, and all of the business is going to have solar panels on top, and we’re basically just not going to need fossil fuels anymore. And we’re going to be way more decentralized and independent, and states are going to be less dependent on each other for energy. So, that’s going to change geopolitics. A lot of stuff’s going to change, right?

So, you might say that that was transformative. So, you can have a technology that’s really transformative, but also maybe you can stop it. If everybody agreed to just not answer the door when the door-to-door solar panel robot salesman comes by, then they would stop. So, that’s transformative, but not prepotent. There’s a lot of different ways that you can envision AI being both transformative and unstoppable, in other words, prepotent.

I have three examples that I’d go to and we’ve written about those in ARCHES. One is technological autonomy. So if you have a little factory that can make more little factories, and it can do its own science and invent its own new materials to make more robots to do more mining, to make more factories, et cetera, you can imagine a process like that that gets out hand someday. Of course, we’re very far away from that today, conceptually, but it might not be very long before we can make robots that make robots that make robots.

Self-sustaining manufacturing like that could build defenses using technology the way humans build defenses against each other. And now suddenly, the humans want to stop it, but it has nukes aimed at us, so we can’t. Another completely different one which is related, is replication speed. Like the way a virus can just replicate throughout your body and destroy you without being very smart.

You could envision, you can imagine. I don’t know of how easy it is to build this, because maybe it’s a question of nanotechnology, but can you build systems that just very quickly replicate, and just tile the earth so fast with their replicants that we die? Maybe we suffocate from breathing them, or breathing their exhaust. That one honestly seems less plausible to me than to technological autonomy one, but to some people it seems more plausible and I don’t have a strong position on that.

And then there’s social acumen. You can imagine say a centralized AI system that is very socially competent, and it can deliver convincing speeches to the point of becoming elected a state official, and then brokering deals between nations that make it very hard for anybody to go against their plans, because they’re so embedded and well negotiated with everybody. And when you try to coordinate, they just whisper things, or say threats or make offers that dis-coordinate everybody again. Even though everybody wants it to stop, nobody can manage to coordinate long enough to stop it because it’s so socially skilled. So those are like a few science fiction scenarios that I would say constitute prepotence on the part of the AI technology or system. They’re all different and the interesting thing about them is that they all can happen without being generally superintelligent. These are conditions that are sufficient to pose a significant existential threat to humanity, but which aren’t superintelligence. And I want to focus on those because I don’t want us to delay addressing existential risk until we have superintelligence. I want us to address it but the minimum viable existential threats that we could face and head those off. So that’s why I focus on prepotence as a property rather than superintelligence because it’s a broader category that I think is still quite threatening and quite plausible.

Lucas Perry: Another interesting and important concept is born of this is misaligned prepotent AI technology. Can you expand a bit on that? So what is and should count as misaligned prepotent AI technology?

Andrew Critch: So this was a tough decision for me because as you’ve noticed throughout this podcast, at the technical level, I find the alignment concept confusing at multi-stakeholder scales, but still critical to think about. And so I couldn’t decide whether to just talk about unsurvivable prepotent AI or misaligned prepotent AI. So let me talk about unsurvivable prepotent AI. By that, I mean it’s transformed the earth, you can’t stop it and moreover, you’re going to die of it eventually. The AI technology has become unsurvivable in the year 2085 if in that year, the humans now are doomed and cannot possibly survive. And I thought about naming the central concept, unsurvivable prepotent AI but a lot of people want to say for them, misalignment is basically unsurvivability.

I think David also tends to think of alignment in a similar way, but there’s this question of where do you draw the line between poorly aligned and misaligned? We just made a decision to say, extinction is the line, but that’s kind of a value judgment. And one of the things I don’t like about the paper is that it has that implicit value judgment. And I think the way I would prefer people to think is in terms of the concept of unsurvivability versus survivability, or prepotence versus not. But the theme of alignment and misalignment is so pervasive that some of our demo readers preferred that name for the unsurvivable prepotent AIs.

Lucas Perry: So misaligned prepotent AI then is just some AI technology that would lead to human extinction?

Andrew Critch: As defined in the report, yep. That’s where we draw the line between aligned and misaligned. If it’s prepotent, it’s having this huge impact. When’s the huge impact definitively misaligned? Well, it’s kind of like where’s the zero line and we just kind of picked extinction to be the line to call misaligned. I think it’s a pretty reasonable line. It’s pretty concrete. And I think a lot of efforts to prevent extinction would also generalize to preventing other big risks. So sometimes, it’s nice to pick a concrete thing and just focus on it.

Lucas Perry: Yeah. I understand why and I think I would probably endorse doing it this way, but it also seems a little bit strange to me that there are futures worse than extinction and they’re going to be below the line. And I guess that’s fine then.

Andrew Critch: That’s why I think unsurvivable is a better word. But our demo readers, some of them just really preferred misaligned prepotent AI over unsurvivable prepotent AI. So we went with that just to make sense to your readers.

Lucas Perry: Okay. So as we’re building AI technologies, we can ask what counts as the deployment of a prepotent AI system or technology, a TAI system, or a misaligned prepotent AI system and the implications of such deployment? I’m curious to get your view on what counts as the deployment of a prepotent AI system or a misaligned prepotent AI system.

Andrew Critch: So you could imagine something that’s transforming the earth and we can’t stop it, but it’s also great.

Lucas Perry: Yeah. An aligned prepotent AI system.

Andrew Critch: Yeah. Maybe it’s just building a lot of infrastructure around the world to take care of people’s health and education. Some people would find that scary and not like the fact that we can’t stop it, and maybe that fear alone would make it harmful or maybe it would violate some principle of theirs that would matter even if they didn’t feel the fear. But you can at least imagine under some value systems, technology that’s kind of taken over the world but it’s taken good care everybody. And maybe it’s going to take care of everybody forever so humanity will never go extinct. That’s prepotent but not unsurvivable, but that’s a dangerous move to make on a planet to sort of make a prepotent thing and try to make sure that it’s an aligned prepotent thing instead of a misaligned prepotent thing, because you’re unstoppably transforming the earth and you maybe you should think a lot before you do that.

Lucas Perry: And maybe prepotence is actually incompatible with alignment if we think about it enough for the reasons that you mentioned.

Andrew Critch: It’s possible. Yeah. With enough reflection on the value of human autonomy, we would eventually conclude that if humans can’t stop it, it’s fundamentally wrong in a way that will alienate and destroy humans eventually in some way. That said, I do want to add something which is that I think almost all prepotent AI that we could conceivably make will be unsurvivably misaligned. If you’re transforming the world, most states of the world are not survivable to humans. Just like most planets are not survivable to humans. So most ways that the world could be very different are just ways in which humans could not survive. So I think if you have a prepotent AI system, you have to sort of steer it through this narrow window of futures, this narrow like keyhole even of futures where all the variables of the earth stay inhabitable to humans, or we would build some space colony where humans live instead of Earth.

Almost every chemical element, if you just turn up that chemical element on the earth, humans die. So that’s the thing that makes me think most conceivable prepotent AI systems are misaligned or unsurvivable. There are people who think about alignment a lot that I think are super biased by the single principal, single agent framing and have sort of lost track of the complexities of society and that’s why they think prepotent AI is conceivable to align or like not that hard to align or something. And I think they’re confused, but maybe I’m the confused one and maybe it’s actually easy.

Lucas Perry: Okay. So you’ve mentioned a little bit here about if you dial in the knobs of the chemical composition of really anything much on the planet in any direction, that pretty quickly you can create pretty hostile or even existentially incompatible situations on Earth for human beings. So this brings us to the concept of basically how frail humanity is given the conditions that are required for us to exist. What is the importance of understanding human frailty in relation to prepotent AI systems?

Andrew Critch: I think it’s pretty simple. I think human frailty implies don’t make prepotent AI. If we lose control of the knobs, we’re at risk of the knobs getting set wrong. Now that’s not to say we can set the knobs perfectly either, but if they start to go wrong, we can gradually set them right again. There’s still hope that we’ll stop climate change, right? And not saying we will, but it’s at least still possible. We haven’t made it impossible to stop. If every human in the world agreed now to just stop, we would succeed. So we should not lose control of this system because almost any direction it could head is a disaster. So that’s why some people talk about the AI control problem, which is different I claim than the AI alignment problem. Even for a single powerful system, you can imagine it looking after you, but not letting you control it.

And if you aim for that and miss, I think it’s a lot more fraught. And I guess the point is that I want to draw attention to human fragility because I know people who think, “No, no, no. The best thing to do for humanity is to build a super powerful machine that just controls the Earth and protects the humans.” I know lots of people who think that. It makes sense logically. It’s like, “Hey, the humans. We might destroy ourselves. Look at this destructive stuff we’re doing. Let’s build something better than us to take care of us.” So I think the reasoning makes sense, but I think it’s a very dangerous thing to aim for because if we aim and miss, we definitely, definitely die.

I think transformative AI is big enough risk. We should never make prepotent AI. We should not make unstoppable, transformative AI. And that’s why there’s so much talk about the off switch game or the control problem or whatever. Corrigibility is kind of related to turning things off. Humans have this nice property where if half of them are destroyed and the other half of them have the ability to notice that and do something about it, they’re quite likely to do something about it. So you get this robustness at a societal scale by just having lots of off switches.

Lucas Perry: So we’ve talked about this concept a bunch already, this concept of delegation. I’m curious if you can explain the importance and relevance of considering delegation of tasks from a human or humans to an AI system or systems. So we’re just going to unpack this taxonomy that you’ve created a bit here of single-single, single-multi, multi-single, and multi-multi.

Andrew Critch: The reason I think delegation is important is because I think a lot of human society is rightly arranged in a way that avoids absolute power from accumulating into decisions of any one person, even in the most totalitarian regimes. The concept of delegation is a way that humans hand power and responsibility to each other in political systems but also in work situations, like the boss doesn’t have to do all the work. They delegate out and they delegate a certain amount of power to people to allow the employees of a company to do the work. That process of responsibilities and tasks being handed from agent to agent to agent is how a lot of things get done in the world. And there’s many things we’ve already delegated to computers.

I think delegation of specific tasks and responsibilities is going to remain important in the future even as we approach human level AI and supersede human level AI, because people resist the accumulation of power. If you say, “Hey, I am Alpha Corp. I’m going to make a superintelligent machine now and then use it to make the world good.” You might be able to get a few employees that are like kind of wacky enough to think that yeah, taking over the world with your machine is the right company mission or whatever. But the winners of the race of AI development are going to be big teams that won because they managed to work together and pull off something really hard. And such a large institution is going to most likely have dissident members who don’t think taking over the world is the right plan for what to do with your powerful tech.

Moreover, there’s going to be plenty of pressures from outside even if you did manage to fill a company full of people who want to take over the world. They’re going to know that that’s kind of not a cool thing to do according to most people. So you’re not going to be taking over the world with AI. You’re going to be taking on specific responsibilities or handing off responsibilities. And so you’ve got an AI system that’s like, “Hey, we can provide this service. We’ll write your spam messages for you. Okay?” So then that responsibility gets handed off. Perhaps OpenAI would choose not to accept that responsibility. But let’s say you want to analyze and summarize a large corpus of texts to summarize what people want. Let’s say you get 10,000 customer service emails in a day and you want something to read that and give you a summary of what really people want.

That’s a tremendously useful thing to be able to do. And let’s say open AI develops the capability to do that. They’ll sell that as a service and other companies will benefit from it greatly. And now, OpenAI has this responsibility that they didn’t have. They’re now responsible for helping Microsoft fulfill customer service requests. And if Microsoft sucks at fulfilling those customer service requests, now open AI is getting complaints from Microsoft because they summarize the requests wrong. So now you’ve got this really complicated relationship where you’ve got a bunch of Microsoft users sending in lots of emails, asking for help that are being summarized by OpenAI, and then hand it off to Microsoft developers to prioritize what they do next with their software. And no one is solely responsible for everything that’s happening because the customer is responsible for what they ask, Microsoft is responsible for what they provide, and open AI is responsible for helping Microsoft understand what to provide based on what the customer’s ask.

Responsibilities get naturally shared out that way unless somebody comes in with a lot of guns and says, “No, give me all the responsibility and all the par.” So militarization of AI is certainly a way that you could see a massive centralization of power from AI. I think States should avoid militarizing AI to avoid scaring other States into militarizing AI. We don’t want to live in a world with militarized AI technologies. So I think if we succeed in heading off that threat and that’s a big if, then we end up in an economy where the responsibilities are being taken on, services are being provided. And then everything’s suddenly very multi-stakeholder, multiple machines servicing multiple people. And I think of delegation as a sort of operation that you perform over and over that ends up distributing those responsibilities and services. And I think about how do you perform a delegation step correctly? If you can do one delegation step correctly, like when Microsoft makes the decision to hand off its customer service interpretation to OpenAI’s language models, Microsoft needs to make that decision correctly.

And it makes that decision correctly. If we define correctly correctly, it’ll be part of an overall economy of delegations that are respectful of humanity. So in my opinion, once you head off militarization, the task of ensuring existential safety for humanity boils down to the task of recursively defining delegation procedures that are guaranteed to preserve human existence and welfare over time.

Lucas Perry: And so you see this area of delegation as being the most x-risky.

Andrew Critch: So it’s interesting. I think delegation prevents centralization of power, which prevents one kind of x-risk. And I think we will seek to delegate. We will seek desperately to delegate responsibilities and distribute power as it accumulates.

Lucas Perry: Why would we naturally do that?

Andrew Critch: People fear power.

Lucas Perry: Do we?

Andrew Critch: If you see something with a lot more power than you, people tend to fear it and sort of oppose it. And separately, people fear having power. If you’re on a team that’s like, “Yeah, we’re going to take over the world,” you’re probably going to be like, “Really? Isn’t it bad? Isn’t that super villain to do that?” So as I predict this, I don’t want to say, “Count on somebody else to adopt this attitude.” I want people listening to adopt that attitude as well. And I both predict and encourage the prevention of extreme concentrations of power from AI development because society becomes less robust then. It becomes this one point of failure where if this thing messes up, everything is destroyed. Whereas right now, it’s not that easy for a centralized force to destroy the world by messing up. It is easy for decentralized forces to destroy the world right now. And that’s how I think it’ll be in the future as well.

Lucas Perry: And then as you’re mentioning and have mentioned, the diffusion of responsibility is where we risk potentially missing core existential safety issues in AI.

Andrew Critch: Yeah, I think that’s the area that’s not only neglected by present day economic incentives, but will likely remain neglected by economic incentives even 10, 20 years from now. And therefore, will be left as the main source of societal scale and existential risk, yeah.

Lucas Perry: And then in terms of the taxonomy you created, can you briefly define the single and multi and the relationships those can have?

Andrew Critch: When I’m talking about AI delegation, I say single-single to mean single human-single AI system, or single human stakeholder and a single AI system. And I always referred to the number of humans first. So if I say single-multi, that means one human stakeholder, which might be a company or a person, and then multiple AI systems. And if I say multi-single, that’s multi human- single AI. And then multi-multi means multi human-multi AI. I started using this in a AGI safety course I was teaching at Berkeley in 2018 because I just noticed a lot of equivocation between students about which kind of scenarios they were thinking about. I think there’s a lot of multi-multi delegation work that is going to matter to industry because when you have a company selling a service to a user to do a job for an employer, things get multi-stakeholder pretty quickly. So I do think some aspects of multi-multi delegation will get addressed in industry, but I think they will be addressed in ways that are not designed to prevent existential risk. They will be addressed in ways that are designed to accrue profits.

Lucas Perry: And so some concepts that you also introduce here are those of control, instruction, and comprehension as being integral to AI delegation. Are those something you want to explore now?

Andrew Critch: Yeah, sure. I mean, those are pretty simple. Like when you delegate something to someone, Alice delegates to Bob, in order to make that decision, she needs to understand Bob, like what’s he capable of? What isn’t he? That’s human AI comprehension. Do we understand AI well enough to know what we should delegate? Then, there’s human AI instruction. Can Alice explain to Bob what she wants Bob to do? And can Bob understand that? Comprehension is really a conveyance of information from Bob to Alice. And then instruction is a conveyance of information from Alice to Bob. A lot of single-single alignment work is focused on how are we going to convey the information? Whereas transparency / interpretability work is more like the Bob to Alice direction. And then control is well, what if this whole idea of communication is wrong and we messed it up and we now just need to stop it, just take back the delegation. Like I was counting on my Gmail to send you emails, but now sending you a bunch of spam. I’m going to shut down my account and i’ll send you messages a different way.

That’s control. And I think of any delegation relationship as involving at least those three concepts. There might be other ones that are really important that I’ve left out. But I see a lot of research as serving one of those three nodes. And so then, you could talk about single-single comprehension. Does this person understand this system? Or we can talk about multi-single. Do this team of people understand this system? Multi-single control would be, can this team of people collectively stop or take back the delegation from the system that they’ve been using or counting on? And then it goes to multi-multi and starts to raise questions like what does it mean for a group of people to understand something? Do they all understand individually? Or do they also have to be able to have a productive meeting about it? Maybe they need to be able to communicate with each other about it too for us to consider it to be a group level understanding. So those questions come up in the definition of multi-multi comprehension, and I think they’re going to be pretty important in the end.

Lucas Perry: All right. So we’ve talked a bunch here already about single-single delegation and much of technical alignment research explores this single human-single AI agent scenario. And that’s done because it’s conceptually simple and is perhaps the most simple place to start. So when we’re thinking about AI existential safety and AI existential risk, how is starting from single-single misleading and potentially not sufficient for deep insight into alignment?

Andrew Critch: Yeah, I guess I’ve said this multiple times in this podcast, how much I think diffusion of responsibility is going to play a role in leaving problems unsolved. And I think diffusion of responsibility only becomes visible in the multi-stakeholder or multi-system or both scenarios. That’s the simple answer.

Lucas Perry: So the single-single gets solved again by the commercial incentives and then the important place to analyze is the multi-multi.

Andrew Critch: Well, I wouldn’t simplify it as much as to say the important places to analyze is the multi-multi because consider the following. If you build a house out of clay instead of out of wood, it’s going to fall apart more easily. And understanding clay could help you make that global decision. Similarly if your goal is to eventually produce societally safe, multi-multi delegation procedures for AI, you might want to start by studying the clay that that procedure is built out of, which is the single-single delegation steps. And single-single delegation steps require a certain degree of alignment between the delegator and the delegate. So it might be very important to start by figuring out the right building material for that, figuring out the right single-single delegation steps. And I know a lot of people are approaching it that way.

They’re working on single-single delegation, but that’s not because they think Netflix is never going to launch the Netflix challenge to figure out how to align recommender systems with users. It’s because the researchers who care about existential safety want to understand what I would call a single-single delegation, but what they would call the method of single-single alignment as a building block for what will be built next. But I sort of think different. I think that’s a great reasonable position to have. I think differently than that because I think the day that we have super powerful single-single alignment solutions is the day that it leaves the laboratory and rolls out into the economy. Like if you have very powerful AI systems that you can’t single-single align, you can’t ship a product because you can’t get it to do what anybody wants.

So I sort of think single-single alignment solutions sort of shorten the timeline. It’s like deja vu. When everyone was working on AI capabilities, the alignment people are saying, “Hey, we’re going to run out of time to figure out alignment. You’re going to have all of these capabilities and we’re not going to know how to align them. So let’s start thinking ahead about alignment.” I’m saying the same thing about alignment now. I’m saying once you get single-single alignment solutions, now your AI tech is leaving the lab and going into the economy because you can sell it. And now, you’ve run out of time to have solved the multipolar scenario problem. So I think there’s a bit of a rush to figure out the multi-stakeholder stuff before the single-single stuff gets all figured out.

Lucas Perry: Okay. So what you’re arguing for then here is your what you call multi-multi preparedness.

Andrew Critch: Yeah.

Lucas Perry: Would you also like to state what the multiplicity thesis is?

Andrew Critch: Yeah. It’s the thing I just want to remind people of all the time, which is don’t forget, as soon as you make tech, you copy it, replicate it, modify it. The idea that we’re going to have a single-single system and not very shortly thereafter have other instances of it or other competitors to it, is sort of a fanciful unrealistic scenario. And I just like reminding people as we’re preparing for the future, let us prepare for the nearly inevitable eventuality that there will be multiple instances of any powerful technology. Some people take that as an argument that, “No, no, no. Actually, we should make the first instance so powerful that it prevents the creation of any other AI technology by any other actor.” And logically, that’s valid. I think politically and socially, I think it’s crazy.

Lucas Perry: Uh-huh (affirmative).

Andrew Critch: I think it’s a good way to alienate anybody that you want to work with on existential risk reduction to say, “Our plan is to take over the world and then save it.” Whereas if your plan is to say, “What principles can all AI technology adhere to, such that it in aggregate will not destroy the world,” you’re not taking over anything. You’re just figuring it out. Like if there’s 10 labs in the world all working on that, I’m not worried about one of them succeeding. But if there’s 10 labs in the world all working on the safe world takeover plan, I’m like, “Hmm, now I’m nervous that one of them will think that they’ve solved safe world takeover or something.” And I kind of want to convert them all to the other thing of safe delegation, safe integration with society.

Lucas Perry: So can you take us through the risk types that you develop in your paper that lead to unsurvivability for humanity from AI systems?

Andrew Critch: Yeah. So there’s a lot of stuff that people worry about. I noticed that some of the things people worry about sort of directly cause extinction if they happen. And then some of them are kind of like one degree of causal separation away from that. So I call it tier one risks in the paper, that refers to things that would just directly lead to the deployment of a unsurvivable or misaligned prepotent AI technology. And then tier two risks are risks that lead to tier one risk. So for example, if AI companies or countries are racing really hard to develop AI faster than each other, so much that they’re not taking into account safety to the other countries around them or the other companies around them, then you get a disproportionate prioritization of progress over safety. And then you get a higher risk of societal scale disasters, including existential risks but not limited to it.

And so you could say fierce competition between AI developers is a tier two risk that leads to the tier one risk of MPAI or UPAI deployment, MPAI being misaligned prepotent AI. And tier one, I have this taxonomy that we use in the paper that I like for sort of dividing up tier one into a few different types that all I think have different technical approaches because my goal is to sort of orient on technical research problems that could actually help reduce existential risk from AI. So got this subdivision. The first one we have is basically diffusion of responsibility, or sometimes we call it unaccountable creators. In the paper, we settled on calling it uncoordinated MPAI deployment.

So the deal is before talking about whether this or that AI system is doing what its creators want or don’t want, can we even identify who the creators are? If the creators were this kind of diffuse economy or oligarchy of companies or countries, it might not be meaningful to say, “Did the AI system do what it’s creators want it?” Because maybe they all wanted a different thing. So a risk type 1A is risks that arise from kind of nobody in particular being responsible for and therefore, no one in particular being attentive to preventing the existential risk.

Lucas Perry: That’s an uncoordinated MPAI event.

Andrew Critch: Yeah, exactly. I personally think most of the most likely risks come from that category, but they’re hard to define and I don’t know how to solve them yet. I don’t know if anybody does. But if you assume we’re not in that case, it’s not uncoordinated. Now, there’s a recognizable identifiable institution Alpha Corp-made AI or America made the AI or something like that. And now you can start asking, “Okay. If there’s this recognizable creator relationship, did the creator know that they were making a prepotent technology?” And that’s how we define type 1B. We’ve got creators, but the creators didn’t know that the tech they were making was going to be prepotent. Maybe they didn’t realize it was going to be replicated or used as much as it was, or it was going to be smarter than they thought for whatever reason. But it just ended up affecting the world a lot more than they thought or being more unstoppable than they thought.

If you make something that’s unstoppably transforming the world, which is what prepotent means, and you didn’t anticipate that, that’s bad. You’re making big waves and you didn’t even think about the direction the waves were going. So I think a lot of risk comes from making tech and not realizing how big its impact is going to be in advance. And so you could have things that become prepotent that we weren’t anticipating and a lot of risks comes from that. That’s a whole risk category. That’s 1B. We need good science and discipline for identifying prepotence or dependence or unstoppability or transformativity all of these concepts. But suppose that’s solved, now we go to type 1C. There are creators contrary to 1A and the creators knew they’re making prepotent tech contrary to 1B. And I think this is weird because a lot of people don’t want to make prepotent tech because it’s super risky, but you could imagine some groups doing it.

If they’re doing that, do they recognize that the thing they’re making is misaligned? Do they think, “Oh yeah, this is going to take over the world and protect everybody. This is the, “I tried to take over the world and I accidentally destroyed it scenario.” So that’s unrecognized misalignment or unrecognized unsurvivability as a category of risk. And for that, you just need a really good theory of alignment with your values if you don’t want to destroy the world. And that’s I think what gets people focused on single-single alignment. They’re like, “The world’s broken. I want to fix it. I want to make magic AI that will like fix the world. It has to do what I want though. So let’s focus on single-single alignment.” But now he’s supposed that problem is solved contrary to type 1A you have discernible creators contrary to 1B, they know they’re playing with fire contrary to 1C, they know it’s misaligned. They know fire burns. That’s kind of plausible. If you imagine people messing with dangerous tech in order to figure out how to protect against it, you could have a lab with people sort of brewing up dangerous cyber attack systems that could break out and exercise a lot of social acumen. If they were really powerful language users, then you could imagine something getting out. So that’s, we call it type 1D, involuntary MPAI deployment, maybe it breaks out or maybe hackers break in and release it. But either way, the creators weren’t trying to do it, then you have type 1E which is contrary to 1D, the creators wanted to release MPAI deployment.

So that’s just people trying to destroy the world. I think that’s less plausible in the short term, more plausible in the longterm.

Lucas Perry: So all of these fall under the category of tier one in your paper. And so all of these directly lead to an existential catastrophe for humanity. You then have tier two, which are basically hazardous conditions, which lead to the realization of these tier one events. So could you take us through these conditions, which may act as a catalyst for eliciting the creation of tier one events in the world?

Andrew Critch: Yeah, so the nice thing about the tier one events is that we use the, an exhaustive decision tree for categorizing it. So any tier one event, any deployment event for a misaligned prepotent AI will fall under one of categories 1A through 1E, unfortunately we don’t have such a taxonomy for tier two.

So tier two is just the list of, hey, here’s four things that seem pretty worrisome. So 2A is, companies or countries racing with each other, trying to make AI real fast and not being safe about it. 2B is economic displacement of humans. So people talk about unemployment risks from AI. Imagine that taken to an extreme where eventually humans just have no economic leverage at all, because all economic value is being produced by AI systems. AI’s have taken all the jobs, including the CEO positions, including the board of directors positions, all using AI’s as their delegates to go to the board meetings that are happening every five seconds because of how fast the AI’s can have board meetings. Now, the humans are just like, “We’re just hoping that all that economy out there is going to not somehow use up all of the oxygen,” to say in the atmosphere, or “Lower the temperature of the earth by 30 degrees,” because of how much faster it would be to run super computers 30 degrees colder.

I think a lot of people who think about x-risk, think of unemployment as this sort of mundane, every generation, there’s some wave of unemployment from some tech. That’s nothing compared to existential risk, but I sort of want to raise a flag here and be, one of the waves of unemployment could be the one that just takes away all human leverage and authority. We should be on the lookout for runaway unemployment that leads to prepotence because loss of control and then human enfeeblement, that’s 2C, the humans are still around, but getting weaker and dumber and less capable of stuff because we’re not practicing doing things because AI is doing everything for us. Then one day we just all trip and fall and hit our heads and die kind of thing. But more realistically, maybe we just fail to be able to make good decisions about what AI technology is doing. And we failed to like notice we should be pressing the stop buttons everywhere.

Lucas Perry: The fruits of the utopia created by transformative AI are too enticing that we become enfeebled and fail at creating existential safety for advanced AI systems.

Andrew Critch: Or we use the systems in a stupid way because we all got worse at arithmetic and we couldn’t imagine the risks and we became scope insensitive to them or something. There’s a lot of different ways you can imagine humans just being weaker because AI is sort of helping us and then type 2D is discourse impairment about existential safety. This is something we saw a lot of in 2014 before FLI hosted the Puerto Rico conference, to just kick off basically discourse on existential safety for AI and other big risks from AGI. Luckily since then, with efforts from FLI and then the Concrete Problems in AI safety paper was a early example of acknowledging negative outcomes.

And then you have the ACM push to acknowledge negative risks and now the NeurIPS broader impact stuff. There’s lots of negative acknowledgement now. The discourse around negative outcomes has improved, but I think discourse on existential safety has a long way to go. It’s progressed, but it’s still has a long way to go. If we keep not being able to talk about it, for example, if we keep having to call existential safety safety, right? If we keep having to call it that, because we’re afraid to admit to ourselves or each other, that we’re thinking of existential stakes, we’re never really going to properly analyze the concept or visualize the outcomes together. I think there’s a big risk from just people sort of feeling like they’re thinking about existential safety, but not really saying it to each other and not really getting into the details of how society works at a large scale and therefore kind of ignoring it and making a bunch of bad decisions.

And I called that discourse impairment and it can happen because it’s taboo or it can happen because it’s just easier to talk about safety because safety is everywhere.

Lucas Perry: All right, so we’ve made it through to what is essentially the first third of your paper here. It lays much of the conceptual and language foundations, which are used for the rest, which try to more explicitly flesh out the research directions for existential safety on AI systems, correct?

Andrew Critch: Yeah. And I would say the later sections are a survey of research directions attacking different aspects and possibly exacerbating different aspects too. You earlier called this a research agenda. But I don’t think it’s quite right to call it an agenda because first of all, I’m not personally planning to research every topic in here, although I would be happy to research any of them. So this is not like, “Here’s the plan we’re going to do all these areas.” It’s more like, “Here’s a survey of areas and an analysis of how they flow into each other.” For example, single-single transparency research, that can flow in to coordination models for single-multi comprehension. It’s a view rather than a plan, because I think a plan should take into account more things like what’s neglected, what’s industry going to solve on its own?

My plan would be to pick sections out of this report and call those my agenda. My personal plan is to focus more on multi-agent stuff. Some also social metacognition stuff that I’m interested in. So if I wrote a research agenda, it would be about certain areas of this report, but the rest of the report is really just trying to look at all of these areas that I think relate to existential safety and it kind of analyzing how they relate.

Lucas Perry: All right, Andrew, well, I must say that on page 33, it says, “This report may be viewed as a very coarse description of a very long term research agenda, aiming to understand and improve blah, blah, blah.”

Andrew Critch: It’s true. It may be viewed as such and you may have just viewed it as such.

Lucas Perry: Yeah, I think that’s where I got that language from.

Andrew Critch: It’s true. Yeah, and I think if an institution just picked up this report and said, “This is our agenda.” I’d be like, “Cool, go for it. That’s a great plan.”

Lucas Perry: All right. I’m just getting you back for nailing me on the definition of AI alignment.

Andrew Critch: Okay.

Lucas Perry: Let’s hit up on some of the most important or key aspects here then for this final part of the paper. We have three questions here. The first is, “How would you explain the core of your concerns about, and the importance of flow through effects?” What are flow-through effects and why are they important for considering AI existential safety?

Andrew Critch: Flow through effects just means if A affects B and B affects C, then indirectly A affects C. Effects like that can be pretty simple in physics, but they can be pretty complicated in medicine and they might be even more complicated in research. If you do research on single-single transparency, that’s going to flow through to single-multi instruction. How is a person going to instruct a hierarchy of machines? Can they delegate to the machines to delegate to other machines? Okay, now can I understand? Okay, cool. There’s a flow through effect there. Then that’s going to flow through to multi-multi control. How can you have a bunch of people instructing a bunch of machines and still have control over them? If the instructions aren’t being executed to satisfaction, or if they’re going to cause a big risk or something.

And some of those flow through effects can be good, some of them could be bad. For example, you can imagine work in transparency flowing through to really rapid development in single-multi instruction, because you can understand more of what all the little systems are doing. You can tell more of them what to do and get more stuff done. Then that could flow through to disasters in multi-multi control because you’ve got races between powerful institutions that are delegating to large numbers of individual systems that they understand separately. But the interaction of which at a global scale are not understood by any one institution. So then you just get this big cluster of pollution or other problems being caused for humans, as a side effect. Just thinking about a problem, that’s a sub problem of the final solution is not always helpful, societally. Even if it is helpful to you personally, understanding how to approach the helpful societal scale solution. My personal biggest area of interest, I’m kind of split between two things.

One is, if you have a very powerful system and several stakeholders with very different priorities or beliefs, trying to decide a policy for that system. Imagine U.S., China and Russia trying to reach an agreement on some global cyber security protocol, that’s AI mediated or Uber and Waymo, trying to agree on what are the principles that their cars are going to follow when they’re doing lane changes. Are they going to try to intimidate each other to get a better chance at that lane changes? Is that going to put the humans at risk? Yes, okay. Can we all not intimidate each other and therefore not put the passengers at risk? That’s a big question for me, is how can you make systems that have powerful stakeholders in the process of negotiating for control over the system?

It’s like the system is not even deployed yet. We’re considering deploying it and we’re negotiating for the parameters of the system. I want the system to have a nice API, for the negotiating powers, to sort of turn knobs until they’re all satisfied with it. I call that negotiable AI. I’ve got a paper called Negotiable Reinforcement Learning with a student. I think that kind of encapsules the problem, but it’s not a solution to the problem by any means. It’s just merely drawing attention to it. That’s like a one core thing that I think is going to be really important as multi-stakeholder control. Not multi-stakeholder alignment, not making all the stakeholders happy, but making them work together in sharing the system, which might sometimes leave one of them unhappy. But at least they’re not all fighting and causing disasters from the externalities of their competition. The other one is almost the same principle, but where the negotiation is happening between the AI systems instead of the people.

So how do you get two AI systems, like System A and System B serving Alice and Bob, Alice and Bob want very different things. Now A and B have to get along. How can A and B get along, broker an agreement about what to do that’s better than fighting. Both of these areas of research are kind of trying to make peace between the human institutions controlling a powerful system. And the second case is peace between two AI systems. I don’t know how to do this at all. That’s why I try to focus on it. It’s sort of nobody’s job, except for maybe the UN and the UN doesn’t have… The cars getting along thing is kind of like a National Institute of Standards thing maybe, or a partnership, an AI thing maybe so maybe they’ll address that, but it’s still super interesting to me and possibly generalizable to big, higher stakes issues.

So I don’t claim that it’s going to be completely neglected as an area. It’s just very interesting at a technical level it seems neglected. I think there’s lots of policy thinking about these issues, but what shape does the technology itself need to have to make it easy for policymakers to set the standards, for it to be sort of negotiable and cooperative? That’s where my interests lie.

Lucas Perry: All right. And so that’s also matches up with everything else you said, because those are two sub-problems of multi-multi situations.

Andrew Critch: Yes.

Lucas Perry: All right. So next question is, is there anything else you’d like to add then to how it is the thinking about AI research directions affect AI existential risk?

Andrew Critch: I guess I would just add, people need to feel permission to work on things because they need to understand them, rather than because they know that it’s going to help the world. I think there’s a lot of paranoia about like, if you manage to care, but existential risks you’re like thinking about these high stakes and it’s easy to become paranoid. What if I accidentally destroy the world by doing the wrong research or something? I don’t think that’s a healthy state for a researcher, maybe for some it’s healthy, but I think for a lot of people that I’ve met, that’s not conducive to their productivity.

Lucas Perry: Is that something that you encounter a lot, people who have crippling anxiety over whether the research direction is correct?

Andrew Critch: Yeah, and varying degrees of crippling, some that you would actually call anxiety, the person’s experiencing actual anxiety. But more often it’s just a kind of festering unproductivity. It’s thinking of an area, “But that’s just going to advanced capabilities, so I won’t work on it,” or like think of an area it’s like, “Oh, that’s just going to hasten the economic deployment of AI systems, so I’m not going to work on it.” I do that kind of triage, but more so because I want to find neglected areas, rather than because I’m afraid of building the wrong tech or something. I find that mentality doesn’t inhibit my creativity or something. I want people to be aware of flow through effects and that any tech can flow through to have a negative impact that they didn’t expect. And because of that, I want everyone to sort of raise their overall vigilance towards AI technology as a whole. But I don’t want people to feel paralyzed like, “Oh no, what if I invent really good calibration for neural nets? Or what if I invent really good, bounded rationality techniques and then accidentally destroyed the world because people use them.”

I think what we need is for people to sort of go ahead and do their research, but just be aware that X-risk is on the horizon and starting to build institutional structures to make higher and higher stakes decisions about AI deployments, along with being supportive of areas of research that are conducive to those decisions being made. I want to encourage people to go into these neglected areas that I’m saying, but I don’t want people to think I’m saying they’re bad for doing anything else.

Lucas Perry: All right. Well, that’s some good advice then for researchers. Let’s wrap up here then on important questions in relevant multi-stakeholder objectives. We have four here that we can explore. The first is facilitating collaborative governance and the next is avoiding races by sharing control. Then we have reducing idiosyncratic risk taking, and our final one is existential safety systems. Could you take us through each of these and how they are relevant multi-stakeholder objectives?

Andrew Critch: Yeah, sure. So the point of this section of the report, it’s a pause between the sections about research for single human stakeholders and research for multiple human stakeholders. It’s there sort of explain why I think it’s important to think of multiple human stakeholders and important, not just in general. I mean, it’s obviously important for a lot of aspects of society, but I’m trying to focus on why it’s important to existential risk specifically.

So the first reason, facilitating collaborative governance is that I think it’s good if people from different backgrounds with different beliefs and different priorities can work together in governing AI. If you need to decide on a national standard, if you need an international standard, if you need to decide on rules that AI is not allowed to break, or that developers are not allowed to break. It’s going to suck if researchers in China make up some rules and researchers in America makeup different rules and the American rules don’t protect from the stuff that the Chinese rules protect from and the Chinese rules don’t protect from the stuff the American rules protect from. Moreover, that systems interacting with each other are going to not protect from either of those risks.

It’s good to be able to collaborate in governing things. Thinking about systems and technologies having a lot of stakeholders is key to preparing those technologies in a form that allows them to be collaborated over. Think about Google docs. I can see your cursor moving when you write in a Google doc. That’s really informative in a way that other collaborative document editing software does not allow. I don’t know if you’ve ever noticed how very informative it is to see where someone’s cursor is versus using another platform where you can only see the line someone’s on, but you can’t see what character they’re typing right now, that you can’t see what word they’re thinking. You’re like way, way, way less in tune with each other when you’re writing together, when you can’t see the cursors.

That’s an example of a way in which Google docs just had this extra feature that makes it way easier to negotiate for control, because if you’re not getting into an edit war, if I’m editing something, I’m not going to put my cursor where your cursor is. Or if I start backspacing a word that you just wrote, you know I must mean that, it must be important change. I just interrupted your cursor. Maybe you’re going to let me finish that backspace and see what the hell I’m doing. There’s this negotiability over the content of the document. It’s a consequence of the design of the interface. I think similarly AI technology could be designed with properties that make it easier for different stakeholders to cooperate in exercising, in the act of exercise and control over the system and its priorities. I think that sort of design question is key to facilitating collaborative governance because you can have stakeholders from different institutions, different cultures collaborating in the act of governing or controlling systems and observing what principles the systems need to have, need to adhere to for the purposes of different cultures or different values and so on.

Now, why is that important? Well, it’s lots of warm fuzzies from people working together and stuff. But one reason it’s important is that it reduces incentives to race. If we can all work together to set the speed limit, we don’t all have to drive as fast as we can to beat each other. That’s the section 7.2 is avoiding races by share and control and then section 7.3 is reducing idiosyncratic risk taking. Basically everybody kind of wants different things, but there’s a whole bunch of stuff we all don’t want. This kind of comes back to what you said about there being basic human values. Most of us don’t want humanity to go extinct. Most of us don’t want everyone to suffer greatly, but everybody kind of has a different view of what utopia should look like. That’s kind of maybe where the paretotopia concept came from.

It’s like everybody has a different utopia in mind, but nobody wants dystopia. If you imagine a powerful AI technology that might get deployed, and there’s a bunch of people on the committee deciding to make the deployment decision or deciding what features it should have, you can imagine one person on the committee being like, “Well, this poses a certain level of societal scale risk, but it’s worth it because of the anti-aging benefits that the AI is going to produce through the research, that’s going to be great.” Then another person on the committee being like, “Well, I don’t really care about anti-aging, but I do care about space travel. I want it to take a risk for that.” Then they’re like, “Wait a minute, I think we have this science assistant AI. We should use it on anti-aging not space.” And the space travel person’s like, “We should use it on space travel, not anti aging.”

Because of that, they don’t agree, that slows progress, but maybe a little slower progress is maybe a safer thing for humanity. Everyone has their agenda that they want to risk the world for, but because everyone disagrees and what risks are worth it, you sort of slow down and say, “Maybe collectively, we’re just not going to take any of these risks right now and we’ll just wait until we can do it with less risk.” So reducing idiosyncratic risk taking is just my phrase for the way everyone’s individual desire to take risks kind of averages out. Whereas every member of the committee doesn’t want human extinction so that doesn’t get washed out. It’s like everybody wants it to not destroy the world. Whereas not everybody wants it to colonize space or not everybody wants it to cure aging. You end up conservative on the risk, if you can collaboratively govern.

Then you’ve got existential safety systems, which is the last thing. If we did someday try to build AI tech that actually protects the world in some way, like say through cybersecurity or through environmental protection, that’s terrifying by the way, AI that controls the environment. But anyway, it’s also really promising, maybe we can clean up. It’s just the big move, setting control of the environment to AI systems is a big move. But as long you got lots of off switches, it’s maybe it’s great. Those big moves are scary because of how big they are. A lot of institutions would just never allow it to happen because of how scary it is. It’s like, “All right, I’ve got this garbage cleanup, AI is just going to actually go clean up all the garbage, or it’s going to scrub all the CO2 with this little replicating photosynthetic lab here. That’s going to absorb all the carbon dioxide and store it as biofuel. Great.” That’s scary. You’re like, whoa, you’re just unrolling the self replicating biofuel lab all over the world. People won’t let that happen.

I’m not sure what the right level of risk tolerance is for saving the world versus risking the world. But whatever it is, you are going to want existential safety safety nets, literal existential safety nets there to protect from big disasters. Whether the system is just an algorithm that runs on the robots that are doing whatever crazy world intervention you’re doing, or if it’s actually a separate system. But if you’re making a big change to the world for the sake of existential safety, you’re not going to get away with it unless a lot of people are involved in that decision. This is kind of a bid to the people who really do want to make big world interventions. Sometimes for the sake of safety, you’re going to have to appeal to a lot of stakeholders to sort of be allowed to do that.

So those are four reasons why I think developing your tech in a way that really is compatible with multiple stakeholders is going to be societally important and not automatically solved by industry standards. Maybe solved in special cases that are profitable, but not necessarily generalizable to these issues.

Lucas Perry: Yeah, the set of problems that are not naturally solved by industry and incentives, but that are crucial for existential safety are the set of problems it seems that we crucially need to identify and anticipate and engage in research today. Being mindful of flow through effects, such that we’re able to have as much leverage on that set of problems, given that they’re most likely not to be solved without a lot of foresight and intervention from the outside of industry and the normal flow of incentives.

Andrew Critch: Yep, exactly.

Lucas Perry: All right, Andrew wrapping things up. I just want to offer you a final bit of space for you to give any final words you’d like to say about the paper or AI existential risk. If there’s anything you feel is unresolved or you’d really like to communicate to everyone.

Andrew Critch: Yeah, thanks. I’d say if you’re interested in existential safety or something adjacent to it, use specific words for what you mean instead of just calling it AI safety all the time. Whatever your thing is, maybe it’s not existential safety, maybe it’s a societal scale risk or single-multi alignment or something, but try to get more specific about what we’re interested in. So that it’s easier for newcomers thinking about these topics, to know what we mean when we say them.

Lucas Perry: All right. If people want to follow you or get in touch or find your papers and work, where are the best places to do that?

Andrew Critch: For me personally, or David Krueger, the other coauthor on this report, and you could just Google our names and then we’ll have our research homepage show up and then you can see what our papers are or obviously Google Scholar is always a good avenue. Google Scholar sorted by year is a good trick because you can see what people are working on now, but there’s also the Center for Human Compatible AI where I work. There’s a bunch of other research going on there that I’m not doing, but I’m also still very interested in, and I’d probably be interested in doing more work research in that vein. I would say check out humancompatible.ai or acritch.com, for me personally. I don’t know what David’s homepage is, but I’m sure you can find them by Googling David Krueger.

Lucas Perry: All right, Andrew, thanks so much for coming on and for your paper, I feel like I honestly gained a lot of perspective here on the need for clarity on definitions and what we mean. You’ve given me a better perspective on the kind of problem that we have and the kind of solutions that it might require and so for that, I’m grateful.

Andrew Critch: Thanks.

End of recorded material

Iason Gabriel on Foundational Philosophical Questions in AI Alignment

 Topics discussed in this episode include:

  • How moral philosophy and political theory are deeply related to AI alignment
  • The problem of dealing with a plurality of preferences and philosophical views in AI alignment
  • How the is-ought problem and metaethics fits into alignment 
  • What we should be aligning AI systems to
  • The importance of democratic solutions to questions of AI alignment 
  • The long reflection

 

Timestamps: 

0:00 Intro

2:10 Why Iason wrote Artificial Intelligence, Values and Alignment

3:12 What AI alignment is

6:07 The technical and normative aspects of AI alignment

9:11 The normative being dependent on the technical

14:30 Coming up with an appropriate alignment procedure given the is-ought problem

31:15 What systems are subject to an alignment procedure?

39:55 What is it that we’re trying to align AI systems to?

01:02:30 Single agent and multi agent alignment scenarios

01:27:00 What is the procedure for choosing which evaluative model(s) will be used to judge different alignment proposals

01:30:28 The long reflection

01:53:55 Where to follow and contact Iason

 

Citations:

Artificial Intelligence, Values and Alignment 

Iason Gabriel’s Google Scholar

 

We hope that you will continue to join in the conversations by following us or subscribing to our podcasts on Youtube, Spotify, SoundCloud, iTunes, Google Play, StitcheriHeartRadio, or your preferred podcast site/application. You can find all the AI Alignment Podcasts here.

You can listen to the podcast above or read the transcript below. 

Lucas Perry: Welcome to the AI Alignment Podcast. I’m Lucas Perry. Today, we have a conversation with Iason Gabriel about a recent paper that he wrote titled Artificial Intelligence, Values and Alignment. This episode primarily explores how moral and political theory are deeply interconnected with the technical side of the AI alignment problem, and important questions related to that interconnection. We get into the problem of dealing with a plurality of preferences and philosophical views, the is-ought problem, metaethics, how political theory can be helpful for resolving disagreements, what it is that we’re trying to align AIs to, the importance of establishing a broadly endorsed procedure and set of principles for alignment, and we end on exploring the long reflection.

This was a very fun and informative episode. Iason has succeeded in bringing new ideas and thought to the space of moral and political thought in AI alignment, and I think you’ll find this episode enjoyable and valuable. If you don’t already follow us, you can subscribe to this podcast on your preferred podcasting platform by searching for The Future of Life or following the links on the page for this podcast.

Iason Gabriel is a Senior Research Scientist at DeepMind where he works in the Ethics Research Team. His research focuses on the applied ethics of artificial intelligence, human rights, and the question of how to align technology with human values. Before joining DeepMind, Iason was a Fellow in Politics at St John’s College, Oxford. He holds a doctorate in Political Theory from the University of Oxford and spent a number of years working for the United Nations in post-conflict environments.

And with that, let’s get into our conversation with Iason Gabriel.

So we’re here today to discuss your paper, Artificial Intelligence, Values and Alignment. To start things off here, I’m interested to know what you found so compelling about the problem of AI values and alignment, and generally, just what this paper is all about.

Iason Gabriel: Yeah. Thank you so much for inviting me, Lucas. So this paper is in broad brush strokes about how we might think about aligning AI systems with human values. And I wrote this paper because I wanted to bring different communities together. So on the one hand, I wanted to show machine learning researchers, that there were some interesting normative questions about the value configuration we align AI with that deserve further attention. At the same time, I was keen to show political and moral philosophers that AI was a subject that provoked real philosophical reflection, and that this is an enterprise that is worthy of their time as well.

Lucas Perry: Let’s pivot into what the problem is then that technical researchers and people interested in normative questions and philosophy can both contribute to. So what is your view then on what the AI problem is? And the two parts you believe it to be composed of.

Iason Gabriel: In broad brush strokes, I understand the challenge of value alignment in a way that’s similar to Stuart Russell. He says that the ultimate aim is to ensure that powerful AI is properly aligned with human values. I think that when we reflect upon this in more detail, it becomes clear that the problem decomposes into two separate parts. The first is the technical challenge of trying to align powerful AI systems with human values. And the second is the normative question of what or whose values we try to align AI systems with.

Lucas Perry: Oftentimes, I also see a lot of reflection on AI policy and AI governance as being a core issue to also consider here, given that people are concerned about things like race dynamics and unipolar versus multipolar scenarios with regards to something like AGI, what are your thoughts on this? And I’m curious to know why you break it down into technical and normative without introducing political or governance issues.

Iason Gabriel: Yeah. So this is a really interesting question, and I think that one we’ll probably discuss at some length later about the role of politics in creating aligned AI systems. Of course, in the paper, I suggest that an important challenge for people who are thinking about value alignment is how to reconcile the different views and opinions of people, given that we live in a pluralistic world, and how to come up with a system for aligning AI systems that treats people fairly despite that difference. In terms of practicalities, I think that people envisage alignment in different ways. Some people imagine that there will be a human parliament or a kind of centralized body that can give very coherent and sound value advice to AI systems. And essentially, that the human element will take care of this problem with pluralism and just give AI very, very robust guidance about things that we’ve all agreed upon are the best thing to do.

At the same time, there’s many other visions for AI or versions of AI that don’t depend upon that human parliament being able to offer such cogent advice. So we might think that there are worlds in which there’s multiple AIs, each of which has a human interlocutor, or we might imagine AIs as working in the world to achieve constructive ends and that it needs to actually be able to perform these value calculations or this value synthesis as part of its kind of default operating procedure. And I think it’s an open question what kind of AI system we’re discussing and that probably the political element understood in terms of real world political institutions will need to be tailored to the vision of AI that we have in question.

Lucas Perry: All right. So can you expand then a bit on the relationship between the technical and normative aspects of AI alignment?

Iason Gabriel: A lot of the focus is on the normative part of the value alignment question, trying to work out which values to align AI systems with, whether it is values that really matter and how this can be decided. I think this is also relevant when we think about the technical design of AI systems, because I think that most technologies are not value agnostic. So sometimes, when we think about AI systems, we assume that they’ll have this general capability and that it will almost be trivially easy for them to align with different moral perspectives or theories. Yet when we take a ground level view and we look at the way in which AI systems are being built, there’s various path dependencies that are setting in and there’s different design architectures that will make it easier to follow one moral trajectory rather than the other.

So for example, if we take a reinforcement learning paradigm, which focuses on teaching agents tasks by enabling them to maximize reward in the face of uncertainty over time, a number of commentators have suggested that, that model fits particularly well with the kind of utilitarian decision theory, which aims to promote happiness over time in the face of uncertainty, and that it would actually struggle to accommodate a moral theory that embodies something like rights or hard constraints. And so I think that if what we do want is a rights based vision of artificial intelligence, it’s important that we get that ideal clear in our minds and that we design with that purpose in mind.

This challenge becomes even clearer when we think about moral philosophies, such as a Kantian theory, which would ask an agent to reflect on the reasons that it has for acting, and then ask whether they universalize to good states of affairs. And this idea of using the currency of a reason to conduct moral deliberation would require some advances in terms of how we think about AI, and it’s not something that is very easy to get a handle on from a technical point of view.

Lucas Perry: So the key takeaway here is that what is going to be possible in terms of the normative and in terms of moral learning and moral reasoning in AI systems will supervene upon technical pathways that we take, and so it is important to be mindful of the relationship between what is possible normatively, given what is technically known, and to try and navigate that with mindfulness about that relationship?

Iason Gabriel: I think that’s precisely right. I see at least two relationships here. So the first is that if we design without a conception of value in mind, it’s likely that the technology that we build will not be able to accommodate any value constellation. And then the mirror side of that is if we have a clear value constellation in mind, we may be able to develop technologies that can actually implement or realize that ideal more directly and more effectively.

Lucas Perry: Can you make a bit more clear the ways in which, for example, path dependency of current technical research makes certain normative ethical theories more plausible to be instantiated in AI systems than others?

Iason Gabriel: Yeah. So, I should say that obviously, there’s a wide variety of different methodologies that are being tried at the present moment, and that intuitively, they seem to match up well with different kinds of theory. Of course, the reality is a lot of effort has been spent trying to ensure that AI systems are safe and that they are aligned with human intentions. When it comes to richer goals, so trying to evidence a specific moral theory, a lot of this is conjecture because we haven’t really tried to build utilitarian or Kantian agents in full. But I think in terms of the details, so with regards to reinforcement learning, we have this, obviously, an optimization driven process, and there is that whole caucus of moral theories that basically use that decision process to achieve good states of affairs. And we can imagine, roughly equating the reward that we use to train an RL agent on, with some metric of subjective happiness, or something like that.

Now, if we were to take a completely different approach, so say, virtue ethics, virtue ethics is radically contextual, obviously. And it says that the right thing to do in any situation is the action that evidences certain qualities of character and that these qualities can’t be expressed through a simple formula that we can maximize for, but actually require a kind of context dependence. So I think that if that’s what we want, if we want to build agents that have a virtuous character, we would really need to think about the fundamental architecture potentially in a different way. And I think that, that kind of insight has actually been speculatively adopted by people who consider forms of machine learning, like inverse reinforcement learning, who imagined that we could present an agent with examples of good behavior and that the agent would then learn them in a very nuanced way without us ever having to describe in full what the action was or give it appropriate guidance for every situation.

So, as I said, these really are quite tentative thoughts, but it doesn’t seem at present possible to build an AI system that adapts equally well to whatever moral theory or perspective we believe ought to be promoted or endorsed.

Lucas Perry: Yeah. So, that does make sense to me that different techniques would be more or less skillful for more readily and fully adopting certain normative perspectives and capacities in ethics. I guess the part that I was just getting a little bit tripped up on is that I was imagining that if you have an optimizer being trained off something, like maximize happiness, then given the massive epistemic difficulties of running actual utilitarian optimization process that is only thinking at the level of happiness and how impossibly difficult that, that would be that like human beings who are consequentialists, it would then, through gradient descent or being pushed and nudged from the outside or something, would find virtue ethics and deontological ethics and that those could then be run as a part of its world model, such that it makes the task of happiness optimization much easier. But I see how intuitively it more obviously lines up with utilitarianism and then how it would be more difficult to get it to find other things that we care about, like virtue ethics or deontological ethics. Does that make sense?

Iason Gabriel: Yeah. I mean, it’s a very interesting conjecture that if you set an agent off with the learned goal of trying to maximize human happiness, that it would almost, by necessity, learn to accommodate other moral theories and perspectives kind of suggests that there is a core driver, which animates moral inquiry, which is this idea of collective welfare being realized in a sustainable way. And that might be plausible from an evolutionary point of view, but there’s also other aspects of morality that don’t seem to be built so clearly on what we might even call the pleasure principle. And so I’m not entirely sure that you would actually get to a rights based morality if you started out from those premises.

Lucas Perry: What are some of these things that don’t line up with this pleasure principle, for example?

Iason Gabriel: I mean, of course, utilitarians have many sophisticated theories about how endeavors to improve total aggregate happiness involve treating people, fairly placing robust side constraints on what you can do to people and potentially, even encompassing other goods, such as animal welfare and the wellbeing of future generations. But I believe that the consensus or the preponderance of opinion is that actually, unless we can say that certain things matter, fundamentally, for example, human dignity or the wellbeing of future generations or the value of animal welfare, is quite hard to build a moral edifice that adequately takes these things into account just through instrumental relationships with human wellbeing or human happiness so understood.

Lucas Perry: So then we have this technical problem of how to build machines that have the capacity to do what we want them to do and to help us figure out what we would want to want us to get the machines to do, an important problem that comes in here is the is-ought distinction by Hume, where we have, say, facts about the world, on one hand, is statements, we can even have is statements about people’s preferences and meta-preferences and the collective state of all normative and meta-ethical views on the planet at a given time, and the distinction between that and ought, which is a normative claim synonymous with should and is kind of the basis of morality, and the tension there between what assumptions we might need to get morality off of the ground and how we should interact with a world of facts and a world of norms and how they may or may not relate to each other for creating a science of wellbeing or not even doing that. So how do you think of coming up with an appropriate alignment procedure that is dependent on the answer to this distinction?

Iason Gabriel: Yeah, so that’s a fascinating question. So I think that the is-ought distinction is quite fundamental and it helps us answer one important query, which is whether it’s possible to solve the value alignment question simply through an empirical investigation of people’s existing beliefs and practices. And if you take the is-ought distinction seriously, it suggests that no matter what we can infer from studies of what is already the case, so what people happen to prefer or happen to be doing, we still have a further question, which is should that perspective be endorsed? Is it actually the right thing to do? And so there’s always this critical gap. It’s a space for moral reflection and moral introspection and a place in which error can arise. So we might even think that if we studied all the global beliefs of different people and found that they agreed upon certain axioms or moral properties that we could still ask, are they correct about those things? And if we look at historical beliefs, we might think that there was actually a global consensus on moral beliefs or values that turned out to be mistaken.

So I think that these endeavors to kind of synthesize moral beliefs to understand them properly are very, very valuable resources for moral theorizing. It’s hard to think where else we would begin, but ultimately, we do need to ask these questions about value more directly and ask whether we think that the final elucidation of an idea is something that ought to be promoted.

So in sum, it has a number of consequences, but I think one of them is that we do need to maintain a space for normative inquiry and value alignment can’t just be addressed through an empirical social scientific perspective.

Lucas Perry: Right, because one’s own perspective on the is-ought distinction and whether and how it is valid will change how one goes about learning and evolving normative and meta-ethical thinking.

Iason Gabriel: Yeah. Perhaps at this point, an example will be helpful. So, suppose we’re trying to train a virtuous agent that has these characteristics of treating people fairly, demonstrating humility, wisdom, and things of that nature, suppose we can’t specify these upfront and we do need a training set, we need to present the agent with examples of what people believe evidences these characteristics, we still have the normative question of what goes into that data set and how do we decide. So, the evaluative questions get passed on to that. Of course, we’ve seen many examples of data sets being poorly curated and containing bias that then transmutes onto the AI system. We either need to have data that’s curated so that it meets independent moral standards and the AI learns from that data, or we need to have a moral ideal that is freestanding in some sense and that AI can be built to align with.

Lucas Perry: Let’s try and make that even more concrete because I think this is a really interesting and important problem about why the technical aspect is deeply related with philosophical thinking about this is-ought problem. So a highest level of abstraction, like starting with axioms around here, if we have is statements about datasets, and so data sets are just information about the world, the data sets are the is statements, we can put whatever is statements into a machine and the machine can take the shape of those values already embedded and codified in the world in people’s minds or in our artifacts and culture. And then the ought question, as you said, is what information in the world should we use? And to understand what information we should use requires some initial principle, some set of axioms that bridges the is-ought gap.

So for example, the kind of move that I think Sam Harris tries to lay out is this axiom, we should avoid the worst possible misery for everyone and you may or may not agree with that axiom but that is the starting point for how one might bridge the is-ought gap to be able to select for which data is better than other data or which data we should on load to AI systems. So I’m curious to know, how is it that you think about this very fundamental level of initial axiom or axioms that are meant to bridge this distinction?

Iason Gabriel: I think that when it comes to these questions of value, we could try and build up from this kind of very, very minimalist assumptions of the kind that it sounds like Sam Harris is defending. We could also start with richer conceptions of value that seem to have some measure of widespread ascent and reflective endorsement. So I think, for example, the idea that human life matters or that sentient life matters, that it has value and hence, that suffering is bad is a really important component of that, I think that conceptions of fairness of what people deserve in light of that equal moral standing is also an important part of the moral content of building an aligned AI system. And I would tend to try and be inclusive in terms of the values that we canvass.

So I don’t think that we actually need to take this very defensive posture. I think we can think expansively about the conception and nature of the good that we want to promote and that we can actually have meaningful discussions and debate about that so we can put forward reasons for defending one set of propositions in comparison with another.

Lucas Perry: We can have epistemic humility here, given the history of moral catastrophes and how morality continues to improve and change over time and that surely, we do not sit at a peak of moral enlightenment in 2020. So given our epistemic humility, we can cast a wide net around many different principles so that we don’t lock ourselves into anything and can endorse a broad notion of good, which seems safer, but perhaps has some costs in itself for allowing and being more permissible for a wide range of moral views that may not be correct.

Iason Gabriel: I think that’s, broadly speaking, correct. We definitely shouldn’t tether artificial intelligence too narrowly to the morality of the present moment, given that we may and probably are making moral mistakes of one kind or another. And I think that this thing that you spoke about, a kind of global conversation about value, is exactly right. I mean, if we take insights from political theory seriously, then the philosopher, John Rawls, suggests that a fundamental element of the present human condition is what he calls the fact of reasonable pluralism, which means that when people are not coerced and when they’re able to deliberate freely, they will come to different conclusions about what ultimately has moral value and how we should characterize ought statements, at least when they apply to our own personal lives.

So if we start from that premise, we can then think about AI as a shared project and ask this question, which is given that we do need values in the equation, that we can’t just do some kind of descriptive enterprise and that, that will tell us what kind of system to build, what kind of arrangement adequately factors in people’s different views and perspectives, and seems like a solution built upon the relevant kind of consensus to value alignment that then allows us to realize a system that can reconcile these different moral perspectives and takes a variety of different values and synthesizes them in a scheme that we would all like.

Lucas Perry: I just feel broadly interested in just introducing a little bit more of the debate and conceptions around the is-ought problem, right? Because there are some people who take it very seriously and other people who try to minimize it or are skeptical of it doing the kind of philosophical work that many people think that it’s doing. For example, Sam Harris is a big skeptic of the kind of work that the is-ought problem is doing. And in this podcast, we’ve had people on who are, for example, realists about consciousness, and there’s just a very interesting broad range of views about value that inform the is-ought problem. If one’s a realist about consciousness and thinks that suffering is the intrinsic valence carrier of disvalue in the universe, and that joy is the intrinsic valence carrier of wellbeing, one can have different views on how that even translates to normative ethics and morality and how one does that, given one’s view on the is-ought problem.

So, for example, if we take that kind of metaphysical view about consciousness seriously, then if we take the is-ought problem seriously then, even though there are actually bad things in the world, like suffering, those things are bad, but that it would still require some kind of axiom to bridge the is-ought distinction, if we take it seriously. So because pain is bad, we ought to avoid it. And that’s interesting and important and a question that is at the core of unifying ethics and all of our endeavors in life. And if you don’t take the is-ought problem seriously, then you can just be like, because I understand the way that the world is, by the very nature of being sentient being and understanding the nature of suffering, there’s no question about the kind of navigation problem that I have. Even in the very long-term, the answer to how one might resolve the is-ought problem would potentially be a way of unifying all of knowledge and endeavor. All the empirical sciences would be unified conceptually with the normative, right? And then there is no more conceptual issues.

So, I think I’m just trying to illustrate the power of this problem and distinction, it seems.

Iason Gabriel: It’s a very interesting set of ideas. To my mind, these kinds of arguments about the intrinsic badness of pain, or kind of naturalistic moral arguments, are very strong ways of arguing, against, say, moral relativist or moral nihilist, but they don’t necessarily circumvent the is-ought distinction. Because, for example, the claim that pain is bad is referring to a normative property. So if you say pain is bad, therefore, it shouldn’t be promoted, but that’s completely compatible with believing that we can’t deduce moral arguments from purely descriptive premises. So I don’t really believe that the is-ought distinction is a problem. I think that it’s always possible to make arguments about values and that, that’s precisely what we should be doing. And that the fact that, that needs to be conjoined with empirical data in order to then arrive at sensible judgments and practical reason about what ought to be done is a really satisfactory state of affairs.

I think one kind of interesting aspect of the vision you put forward was this idea of a kind of unified moral theory that everyone agrees with. And I guess it does touch upon a number of arguments that I make in the paper, where I juxtapose two slightly stylistic descriptions of solutions to the value alignment challenge. The first one is, of course, the approach that I term the true moral theory approach, which holds that we do need a period of prolonged reflection and we reflect fundamentally on these questions about pain and perhaps other very deep normative questions. And the idea is that by using tools from moral philosophy, eventually, although we haven’t done it yet, we may identify a true moral theory. And then it’s a relatively simple… well, not simple from a technical point of view, but simple from a normative point of view task, of aligning AI, maybe even AGI, with that theory, and we’ve basically solved the value alignment problem.

So in the paper, I argue against that view quite strongly for a number of reasons. The first is that I’m not sure how we would ever know that we’d identified this true moral theory. Of course, many people throughout history have thought that they’ve discovered this thing and often gone on to do profoundly unethical things to other people. And I’m not sure how, even after a prolonged period of time, we would actually have confidence that we had arrived at the really true thing and that we couldn’t still ask the question, am I right?

But even putting that to one side, suppose that I had not just confidence, but justified confidence that I really had stumbled upon the true moral theory and perhaps with the help of AI, I could look at how it plays out in a number of different circumstances, and I realize that it doesn’t lead to these kind of weird, anomalous situations that most existing moral theories point towards, and so I really am confident that it’s a good one, we still have this question of what happens when we need to persuade other people that we’ve found the true moral theory and whether that is a further condition on an acceptable solution to the value alignment problem. And in the paper, I say that it is a further condition that needs to be satisfied because just knowing, well, supposedly having access to justified belief in a true moral theory, doesn’t necessarily give you the right to impose that view upon other people, particularly if you’re building a very powerful technology that has world shaping properties.

And if we return to this idea of reasonable pluralism that I spoke about earlier, essentially, the core claim is that unless we coerce people, we can’t get to a situation where everyone agrees on matters of morality. We could flip it around. It might be that someone already has the true moral theory out there in the world today and that we’re the people who refuse to accept it for different reasons, I think the question then is how do we believe other people should be treated by the possessor of the theory, or how do we believe that person should treat us?

Now, one view that I guess in political philosophy is often attributed to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, if you have this really good theory, you’re justified in coercing other people to live by it. He says that people should be forced to be free when they’re not willing to accept the truth of the moral theory. Of course, it’s something that has come in for fierce criticism. I mean, my own perspective is that actually, we need to try and minimize this challenge of value imposition for powerful technologies because it becomes a form of domination. So the question is how can we solve the value alignment problem in a way that avoids this challenge of domination? And in that regard, we really do need tools from political philosophy, which is, particularly within the liberal tradition, has tried to answer this question of how can we all live together on reasonable terms that preserve everyone’s capacity to flourish, despite the fact that we have variation and what we ultimately believe to be just, true and right.

Lucas Perry: So to bring things a bit back to where we’re at today and how things are actually going to start changing in the real world as we move forward. What do you view as the kinds of systems that would be, and are subject to something like an alignment procedure? Does this start with systems that we currently have today? Does it start with systems soon in the future? Should it have been done with systems that we already have today, but we failed to do so? What is your perspective on that?

Iason Gabriel: To my mind, the challenge of value alignment is one that exists for the vast majority, if not all technologies. And it’s one that’s becoming more pronounced as these technologies demonstrate higher levels of complexity and autonomy. So for example, I believe that many existing machine learning systems encounter this challenge quite forcefully, and that we can ask meaningful questions about it. So I think in previous discussion, we may have had this example of a recommendation system come to light. And even if we think of something that seems really quite prosaic. so say a recommendation system for what films to watch or what content to be provided to you. I think the value alignment question actually looms large because it could be designed to do very different things. On the one hand, we might have a recommendation system that’s geared around your current first order preferences. So it might continuously give you really stimulating, really fun, low quality content that kind of keeps you hooked to the system and with a high level of subjective wellbeing, but perhaps something that isn’t optimum in other regards. Then we can think about other possible goals for alignment.

So we might say that actually these systems should be built to serve your second order desires. Those are desires that in philosophy, we would say that people reflectively endorse, they’re desires about the person you want to be. So if we were to build recommendation system with that goal in mind, it might be that instead of watching this kind of cheap and cheerful content, I decided that I’d actually like to be quite a high brow person. So it starts kind of tacitly providing me with more art house recommendations, but even that doesn’t opt out the options, it might be that the system shouldn’t really be just trying to satisfy from my preferences, that it should actually be trying to steer me in the direction of knowledge and things that are in my interest to know. So it might try and give me new skills that I need to acquire, might try and recommend, I don’t know, cooking or self improvement programs.

That would be a system that was, I guess, geared toward my own interest. But even that again, doesn’t give us a complete portfolio of options. Maybe what we want is a morally aligned system that actually enhances our capacity for moral decision making. And then perhaps that would lead us somewhere completely different. So instead of giving us this content that we want, it might lead us to content that leads us to engage with challenging moral questions, such as factory farming or climate change. So, value alignment kind of arises quite early on. This is of course, with the assumption that the recommendation system is geared to promote your interest or wellbeing or preference or moral sensibility. There’s also the question of whether it’s really promoting your goals and aspirations or someone else’s and in science and technology studies there’s a big area of value sensitive design, which essentially says that we need to consult people and have this almost like democratic discussions early on about the kind of values we want to embody in systems.

And then we design with that goal in mind. So, recommendation systems are one thing. Of course, if we look at public institutions, say a criminal justice system, there, we have a lot of public roar and discussion about the values that would make a system like that fair. And the challenge then is to work out whether there is a technical approximation of these values that satisfactory realizes them in a way that conduces to some vision of the public good. So in sum, I think that value alignment challenges exist everywhere, and then they become more pronounced when these technologies become more autonomous and more powerful. So as they have more profound effects on our lives, the burden of justification in terms of the moral standards that are being met, become more exacting. And the kind of justification we can give for the design of a technology becomes more important.

Lucas Perry: I guess, to bring this back to things that exist today. Something like YouTube or Facebook is a very rudimentary initial kind of very basic first order preference, satisfier. I mean, imagine all of the human life years that have been wasted, mindlessly consuming content that’s not actually good for us. Whereas imagine, I guess some kind of enlightened version of YouTube where it knows enough about what is good and yourself and what you would reflectively and ideally endorse and the kind of person that you wish you could be and that you would be only if you knew better and how to get there. So, the differences between that second kind of system and the first system where one is just giving you all the best cat videos in the world, and the second one is turning you into the person that you always wish you could have been. I think this clearly demonstrates that even for systems that seem mundane, that they could be serving us in much deeper ways and at much deeper levels. And that even when they superficially serve us they may be doing harm.

Iason Gabriel: Yeah, I think that’s a really profound observation. I mean, when we really look at the full scope of value or the full picture of the kinds of values we could seek to realize when designing technologies and incorporating them into our lives, often there’s a radically expansive picture that emerges. And this touches upon a kind of taxonomic distinction that I introduce in the paper between minimalist and maximalist conceptions of value alignment. So when we think about AI alignment questions, the minimalist says we have to avoid very bad outcomes. So it’s important to build safe systems. And then we just need them to reside within some space of value that isn’t extremely negative and could take a number of different constellations. Whereas the maximalist says, “Well, let’s actually try and design the very best version of these technologies from a moral point of view, from a human point of view.”

And they say that even if we design safe technologies, we could still be leaving a lot of value out there on the table. So a technology could be safe, but still not that good for you or that good for the world. And let’s aim to populate that space with more positive and richer visions of the future. And then try to realize those through the technologies that we’re building. As we want to realize richer visions of human flourishing, it becomes more important that it isn’t just a personal goal or vision, but it’s one that is collectively endorsed, has been reflected upon and is justifiable from a variety of different points of view.

Lucas Perry: Right. And I guess it’s just also interesting and valuable to reflect briefly on how there is already in each society, a place where we draw the line at value imposition, and we have these principles, which we’ve agreed upon broadly, but we’re not going to let Ted Bundy do what Ted Bundy and wants to do

Iason Gabriel: That’s exactly right. So we have hard constraints, some of which are kind of set in law. And clearly those are constraints that these are just laws. So the AI systems need to respect. There’s also a huge possible space of better outcomes that are left open. Once we look at where moral constraints are placed and where they reside. I think that the Ted Bundy example is interesting because it also shows that we need to discount the preferences and desires of certain people.

One vision of AI alignment says that it’s basically a global preference aggregation system that we need, but in reality, there’s a lot of preferences that just shouldn’t be counted in the first place because they’re unethical or they’re misinformed. So again, that kind of to my mind pushes us in this direction of a conversation about value itself. And once we know what the principle basis for alignment is, we can then adjudicate properly cases like that and work out what a kind of valid input for an aligned system is and what things we need to discount if we want to realize good moral outcomes.

Lucas Perry: I’m not going to try and pin you down too hard on that because there’s the tension here, of course, between the importance of liberalism, not coercing value judgments on anyone, but then also being like, “Well, we actually have to do it in some places.” And that line is a scary one to move in either direction. So, I want to explore more now the different understandings of what it is that we’re trying to align AI systems to. So broadly people and I use a lot of different words here without perhaps being super specific about what we mean, people talk about values and intentions and idealized preferences and things of this nature. So can you be a little bit more specific here about what you take to be the goal of AI alignment, the goal of it being, what is it that we’re trying to align systems to?

Iason Gabriel: Yeah, absolutely. So we’ve touched upon some of these questions already tacitly in the preceding discussion. Of course, in the paper, I argue that when we talk about value alignment, this idea of value is often a placeholder for quite different ideas, as you said. And I actually present a taxonomy of options that I can take us through in a fairly thrifty way. So, I think the starting point for creating aligned AI systems is this idea that we want AI that’s able to follow our instructions, but that has a number of shortcomings, which Stuart Russel and others have documented, which tend to center around this challenge of excessive literalism. So if an AI system literally does what we ask it to, without an understanding of context, side constraints and nuance, often this will lead to problematic outcomes with the story of King Midas, being the classic cautionary tale. Wishing that everything he touches turns to gold, everything turns to gold, then you have a disaster of one kind or another.

So of course, instructions are not sufficient. What you really want is AI that’s aligned with the underlying intention. So, I think that often in the podcast, people have talked about intention alignment as an important goal of AI systems. And I think that is precisely right to dedicate a lot of technical effort to close the gap between a kind of idiot savant, AI, that perceives just instructions in this dumb way and the kind of more nuanced, intelligent AI that can follow an intention. But we might wonder whether aligning AI with an individual or collective intention is actually sufficient to get us to the really good outcomes, the kind of maximalist outcomes that I’m talking about. And I think that there’s a number of reasons why that might not be the case. So of course, to start with, just because an AI can follow an intention, doesn’t say anything about the quality of the intention that’s being followed.

We can form intentions on an individual or collective basis to do all kinds of things. Some of which might be incredibly foolish or malicious, some of which might be self-harming, some of which might be unethical. And we’ve got to ask this question of whether we want AI to follow us down that path when we come up with schemes of that kind, and there’s various ways we might try to address those bundle of problems. I think intentions are also problematic from a kind of technical and phenomenological perspective because they tend to be incomplete. So if we look at what an intention is, it’s roughly speaking a kind of partially filled out plan of action that commits us to some end. And if we imagine the AI systems are very powerful, they may encounter situations or dilemmas or option sets that are in this space of uncertainty, where it’s just not clear what the original intention was, and they might need to make the right kind of decision by default.

So they might need some intuitive understanding of what the right thing to do is. So my intuition is that we do want AI systems that have some kind of richer understanding of the goals that we would want to realize in whole. So I think that we do need to look at other options. It is also possible that we had formed the intention for the AI to do something that explicitly requires an understanding of morality. So we may ask it to do things like promote the greatest good in a way that is fundamentally ethical. Then it needs to step into this other terrain of understanding preferences, interests, and values. I think we need to explore that terrain for one reason or another. Of course, one thing that people talk about is this kind of learning from revealed preferences. So perhaps in addition to the things that we directly communicate, the AI could observe our behavior and make inferences about what we want that help fill in the gaps.

So maybe it could watch you in your public life, hopefully not private life and make these inferences that actually it should create this very good thing. So that isn’t the domain of trying to learn from things that it observes. But I think that preferences are also quite a worrying data point for AI alignment, at least revealed preferences because they contain many of the same weaknesses and shortcomings that we can ascribe to individual intentions.

Lucas Perry: What is a revealed intention again?

Iason Gabriel: Sorry, revealed preferences are preferences that are revealed through your behavior. So I observed you doing A or B. And from that choice, I conclude that you have a deeper preference for the thing that you choose. And the question is, if we just watch people, can we learn all the background information we need to create ethical outcomes?

Lucas Perry: Yeah. Absolutely not.

Iason Gabriel: Yeah. Exactly. As your Ted Bundy example, nicely illustrated, not only is it very hard to actually get useful information from observing people about what they want, but what they want can often be the wrong kind of thing for them or for other people.

Lucas Perry: Yeah. I have to hire people to spend some hours with me every week to tell me from the outside, how I may be acting in ways that are misinformed or self-harming. So instead of revealed preferences, we need something like rational or informed preferences, which is something you get through therapy or counseling or something like that.

Iason Gabriel: Well, that’s an interesting perspective. I guess there’s a lot of different theories about how we get to ideal preferences, but the idea is that we don’t want to just respond to what people are in practice doing. We want to give them the sort of thing that they would aspire to if they were rational and informed at the very least. So not things that are just a result of mistaken reasoning or poor quality information. And then this very interesting, philosophical and psychological question about what the content of those ideal preferences are. And particularly what happens when you think about people being properly rational. So, to return to David Hume, who often the is-ought distinction is attributed to, he has the conjecture that someone can be fully informed and rational and still desire pretty much anything at the end of the day, that they could want something hugely destructive for themselves or other people, of course, Kantians.

And in fact, a lot of moral philosophers believe that rationality is not just a process of joining up beliefs and value statements in a certain fashion, but it also encompasses a substantive capacity to evaluate ends. So, obviously Kantians have a theory about rationality ultimately requiring you to reflect on your ends and ask if they universalize in a positive way. But the thing is that’s highly, highly contested. So I think ultimately if we say we want to align AI with people’s ideal and rational preferences, it leads us into this question of what rationality really means. And we don’t necessarily get the kind of answers that we want to get to.

Lucas Perry: Yeah, that’s a really interesting and important thing. I’ve never actually considered that. For example, someone who might be a moral anti-realist would probably be more partial to the view that rationality is just about linking up beliefs and epistemics and decision theory with goals and goals are something that you’re just given and embedded with. And that there isn’t some correct evaluative procedure for analyzing goals beyond whatever meta preferences you’ve already inherited. Whereas a realist might say something like, the other view where rationality is about beliefs and ends, but also about perhaps more concrete standard method for evaluating which ends are good ends. Is that the way you view it?

Iason Gabriel: Yeah, I think that’s a very nice summary. The people who believe in substantive rationality tend to be people with a more realist, moral disposition. If you’re profoundly anti-realist, you basically think that you have to stop talking in the currency of reasons. So you can’t tell people they have a reason not to act in a kind of unpleasant way to each other, or even to do really heinous things. You have to say to them, something different like, “Wouldn’t it be nice if we could realize this positive state of affairs?” And I think ultimately we can get to views about value alignment that satisfy these two different groups. We can create aspirations that are well-reasoned from different points of view and also create scenarios that meet the kind of, “Wouldn’t it be nice criteria.” But I think it isn’t going to happen if we just double down on this question of whether rationality ultimately leads to a single set of ends or a plurality of ends, or no consensus whatsoever.

Lucas Perry: All right. That’s quite interesting. Not only do we have difficult and interesting philosophical ground in ethics, but also in rationality and how these are interrelated.

Iason Gabriel: Absolutely. I think they’re very closely related. So actually the problems we encounter in one domain, we also encounter in the other, and I’d say in my kind of lexicon, they all fall within this question of practical rationality and practical reason. So that’s deliberating about what we ought to do either because of explicitly moral considerations or a variety of other things that we factor up in judgements of that kind.

Lucas Perry: All right. Two more on our list here to hit our interests and values.

Iason Gabriel: So, I think there are one or two more things we could say about that. So if we think that one of the challenges with ideal preferences is that they lead us into this heavily contested space about what rationality truly requires. We might think that a conception of human interests does significantly better. So if we think about AI being designed to promote human interests or wellbeing or flourishing, I would suggest that as a matter of empirical fact, there’s significantly less disagreement about what that entails. So if we look at say the capability based approach that Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum have developed, it essentially says that there’s a number of key goods and aspects of human flourishing, that the vast majority of people believe conduce to a good life. And that actually has some intercultural value and affirmation. So if we designed AI that bore in mind, this goal of enhancing general human capabilities.

So, human freedom, physical security, emotional security, capacity, that looks like an AI that is both roughly speaking, getting us into the space of something that looks like it’s unlocking real value. And also isn’t bogged down in a huge amount of metaphysical contention. I suggest that aligning AI with human interests or wellbeing is a good proximate goal when it comes to value alignment. But even then I think that there’s some important things that are missing and that can only actually be captured if we returned to the idea of value itself.

So by this point, it looks like we have almost arrived at a kind of utilitarian AI via the backdoor. I mean, of course utility is a subject of mental state, isn’t necessarily the same as someone’s interest or their capacity to lead a flourishing life. But it looks like we have an AI that’s geared around optimizing some notion of human wellbeing. And the question is what might be missing there or what might go wrong. And I think there are some things that that view of value alignment still struggles to factor in. The welfare of nonhuman animals is something that’s missing from this wellbeing centered perspective on alignment.

Lucas Perry: That’s why we might just want to make it wellbeing for sentient creatures.

Iason Gabriel: Exactly, and I believe that this is a valuable enterprise, so we can expand the circle. So we say it’s the wellbeing of sentient creatures. And then we have the question about, what about future generations? Does their wellbeing count? And we might think that it does if we follow Toby Ord or in fact, most conventional thinking, we do think that the welfare of future generations has intrinsic value. So we might say, “Well, we want to promote wellbeing of sentient creatures over time with some appropriate weighting to account for time.”

And that’s actually starting to take us into a richer space of value. So we have wellbeing, but we also have a theory about how to do intertemporal comparisons. We might also think that it matters how wellbeing or welfare is distributed. That it isn’t just a maximization question, but that we also have to be interested in equity or distribution because we think is intrinsically important. So we might think it has to be done in a manner that’s fair. Additionally, we might think that things like the natural world have intrinsic value that we want to factor in. And so the point which will almost be familiar now from our earlier discussion is you actually have to get to that question of what values do we want to align the system with because values and the principles that derive with them can capture everything that is seemingly important.

Lucas Perry: Right. And so, for example, within the effective altruism community and within moral philosophy recently, the way in which moral progress has been made is in so far that debiasing human moral thought and ethics from spatial and temporal bias. So Peter Singer has the children drowning in a shallow pond argument. It just illustrates how there are people dying and children dying all over the world in situations which we could cheaply intervene to save them as if they were drowning in a shallow pond. And you only need to take a couple of steps and just pull them out, except we don’t. And we don’t because they’re far away. And I would like to say, essentially, everyone finds this compelling that where you are in space, doesn’t matter how much you’re suffering. That if you are suffering, then all else being equal, we should intervene to alleviate that suffering when it’s reasonable to do so.

So space doesn’t matter for ethics. Likewise, I hope, and I think that we’re moving in the right direction if time also doesn’t matter while also being mindful, we also have to introduce things like uncertainty. We don’t know what the future will be like, but this principle about caring about the wellbeing of sentient creatures in general, I think is essential and core I think to whatever list of principles we’ll want for bridging the is-ought distinction, because it takes away spacial bias, where you are in space, doesn’t matter, just matters that you’re sentient being, it doesn’t matter when you are as a sentient being. It also doesn’t matter what kind of sentient being you are, because the thing we care about is sentience. So then the moral circle has expanded across species. It’s expanded across time. It’s expanded across space. It includes aliens and all possible minds that we could encounter now or in the future. We have to get that one in, I think, for making a good future with AI.

Iason Gabriel: That’s a picture that I strongly identify with on a personal level, this idea of the expanding moral circle of sensibilities. And I think from a substantive point of view, you’re probably right. That that is a lot of the content that we would want to put into an aligned AI system. I think that one interesting thing to note is that a lot of these views are actually empirically fairly controversial. So if we look at the interesting study, the moral machine experiment, where I believe several million people ultimately played this experiment online, where they decided which trade offs an AV, an autonomous vehicle, should make in different situations. So whether it should crash into one person or five people, a rich person or a poor person, pretty much everyone agreed that it should kill fewer people when that was on the table. But I believe that in many parts of the world, there was also belief that the lives of affluent people mattered more than the lives of those in poverty.

And so if you were just to reason from their first sort of moral beliefs, you would bake that bias into an AI system that seems deeply problematic. And I think it actually puts pressure on this question, which is we’ve already said we don’t want to just align AI with existing moral preferences. We’ve also said that we can’t just declare a moral theory to be true and impose it on other people. So are there other options which move us in the direction of these kinds of moral beliefs that seem to be deeply justified, but also avoid the challenge of value imposition. And how far do they get if we try to move forward, not just as individuals like examining the kind of expanding moral circle, but as a community that’s trying to progressively endogenize these ideas and come up with moral principles that we can all live by.

We might not get as far if we were going at it alone, but I think that there are some solutions that are kind of in that space. And those are the ones I’m interested in exploring. I mean, common sense, morality understood as the conventional morality that most people endorse, I would say is deeply flawed in a number of regards, including with regards to global poverty and things of that nature. And that’s really unfortunate given that we probably also don’t want to force people to live by more enlightened beliefs, which they don’t endorse or can’t understand. So I think that the interesting question is how do we meet this demand for a respect for pluralism, and also avoid getting stuck in the morass of common sense morality, which has these prejudicial beliefs that will probably with the passage of time come to be regarded quite unfortunately by future generations.

And I think that making this demand for non domination or democratic support seriously means not just running far into the future or in a way that we believe represents the future, but also doing a lot of other things, trying to have a democratic discourse where we use these reasons to justify certain policies that then other people reflectively endorse and we move the project forwards in a way that meets both desiderata. And in this paper, I try to map out different solutions that both meet this criteria and of respecting people’s pluralistic beliefs while also moving us towards more genuinely morally aligned outcomes.

Lucas Perry: So now the last question that I want to ask you here then on the goal of AI alignment is do you view a needs based conception of human wellbeing as a sub-category of interest based value alignment? People have come up with different conceptions of human needs. People are generally familiar with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. And I mean, as you go up the hierarchy, it will become more and more contentious, but everyone needs food and shelter and safety, and then you need community and meaning and spirituality and things of that nature. So how do you view or fit a needs based conception. And because some needs are obviously undeniable relative to others.

Iason Gabriel: Broadly speaking, a needs space conception of wellbeing is in that space we already touched upon. So the capabilities based approach and the needs based approach are quite similar. But I think that what you’re saying about needs potentially points to a solution to this kind of dilemma that we’ve been talking about. If we’re going to ask this question of what does it mean to create principles for AI alignment that treat people fairly, despite their different views. One approach we might take is to look for commonalities that also seem to have moral robustness or substance to them. So within the parlance of political philosophy, we’d call this an overlapping consensus approach to the problem of political and moral decision making. I think that that’s a project that’s well worth countenancing. So we might say there’s a plurality of global beliefs and cultures. What is it that these cultures coalesce around? And I think that it’s likely to be something along the lines of the argument that you just put forward; that people are vulnerable in virtue of how we’re constituted, that we have a kind of fragility and that we need protection, both against the environment and against certain forms of harm, particularly state-based violence. And that this is a kind of moral bedrock or what the philosopher Henry Shue calls, “A moral minimum” that receives intercultural endorsement. So actually the idea of human needs is very, very closely tied to the idea of human rights. So the idea is that the need is fundamental, and in virtue of your moral standing, the normative claim and your need, the empirical claim, you have a right to enjoy a certain good and to be secured in the knowledge that you’ll enjoy that thing.

So I think the idea of building a kind of human rights space, AI that’s based upon this intercultural consensus is pretty promising. In some regards human rights, as they’ve been historically thought about are not super easy to turn into a theory of AI alignment, because they are historically thought of as guarantees that States have to give their citizens in order to be legitimate. And it isn’t entirely clear what it means to have a human rights based technology, but I think that this is a really productive area to work in, and I would definitely like to try and populate that ground.

You might also think that the consensus or the emerging consensus around values that need to be built into AI systems, such as fairness and explainability potentially pretends that the emergence of this kind of intercultural consensus. Although I guess at that point, we have to be really mindful of the voices that are at the table and who’s had an opportunity to speak. So although there does appear to be some convergence around principles of beneficence and things like that, there’s also true that this isn’t a global conversation in which everyone is represented, and it would be easy to prematurely rush to the conclusion that we know what values to pursue, when we’re really just reiterating some kind of very heavily Western centric, affluent view of ethics that doesn’t have real intercultural democratic viability.

Lucas Perry: All right, now it’s also interesting and important to consider here the differences and importance of single agent and multi-agent alignment scenarios. For example, you can imagine entertaining the question of, “How is it that I would build a system that would be able to align with my values? One agent being the AI system, and one person, and how is it that I get the system to do what I want it to do?” And then the multi-agent alignment scenario considers, “How do I get one agent to align and serve to many different people’s interests and wellbeing and desires, and preferences, and needs? And then also, how do we get systems to act and behave when there are many other systems trying to serve and align to many other different people’s needs? And how is it that all of these systems may or may not collaborate with all of the other AI systems, and may or may not collaborate with all of the other human beings, when all the human beings may have conflicting preferences and needs?” How is it that we do for example, intertheoretic comparisons of value and needs? So what’s the difference, and importance between single agent and multi-agent alignment scenarios?

Iason Gabriel: I think that the difference is best understood in terms of how expansive the goal of alignment has to be. So if we’re just thinking about a single person and a single agent, it’s okay to approach the value alignment challenge through a slightly solipsistic lens. In fact, you know, if it was just one person and one agent, it’s not clear that morality really enters the picture, unless there are other people other sentient creatures who our actions can effect. So with one person, one agent, the challenge is primarily correlation with the person’s desires, aims intentions. Potentially, there’s still a question of whether the AI serves their interest rather than, you know, there’s more volitional states that come to mind. When we think about situations in which many people are affected, then it becomes kind of remiss not to think about interpersonal comparisons, and the kind of richer conceptions that we’ve been talking about.

Now, I mentioned earlier that there is a view that there will always be a human body that synthesizes preferences and provides moral instructions for AI. We can imagine democratic approaches to value alignment, where human beings assemble, maybe in national parliaments, maybe in global fora, and legislate principles that AI is then designed in accordance with. I think that’s actually a very promising approach. You know, you would want it to be informed by moral reflection and people offering different kinds of moral reasons that support one approach rather than the other, but that seems to be important for multi-person situations and is probably actually a necessary condition for powerful forms of AI. Because, when AI has a profound effect on people’s lives, these questions of legitimacy also start to emerge. So not only is it doing the right thing, but is it doing the sort of thing that people would consent to, and is it doing the sort of thing that people actually have consented to? And I think that when AI is used in certain forum, then these questions of legitimacy come to the top. There’s a bundle of different things in that space.

Lucas Perry: Yeah. I mean, it seems like a really, really hard problem. When you talk about creating some kind of national body, and I think you said international fora, do you wonder that some of these vehicles might be overly idealistic given what may happen in the world where there’s national actors competing and capitalism driving things forward relentlessly, and this problem of multi-agent alignment seems very important and difficult, and that there are forces pushing things such that it’s less likely that it happens.

Iason Gabriel: When you talk about multi-agent alignment. Are you talking about the alignment of an ecosystem that contains multiple AI agents, or are you talking about how we align an AI agent with the interests and ideas of multiple parties? So many humans, for example?

Lucas Perry: I’m interested and curious about both.

Iason Gabriel: I think there’s different considerations that arise for both sets of questions, but there are also some things that we can speak to that pertain to both of them.

Lucas Perry: Do they both count as multi-agent alignment scenarios in your understanding of the definition?

Iason Gabriel: From a technical point of view? It makes perfect sense to describe them both in that way. I guess when I’ve been thinking about it, curiously, I’ve been thinking of multi-agent alignment as an agent that has multiple parties that it wants to satisfy. But when we look at machine learning research, “Multi-agent” usually means many AI agents running around in a single environment. So I don’t see any kind of language based reason to opt for one, rather than the other. With regards to this question of idealization and real world practice, I think it’s an extremely interesting area. And the thing I would say is this is almost one of those occasions where potentially the is-ought distinction comes to our rescue. So the question is, “Does the fact that the real world is a difficult place, affected by divergent interests, mean that we should level down our ideals and conceptions about what really good and valuable AI would look like?”

And there are some people who have what we term, “Practice dependent” views of ethics who say, “Absolutely we should do. We should adjust our conception of what the ideal is.” But as you’ll probably be able to tell by now, I hold a kind of different perspective in general. I don’t think it is problematic to have big ideals and rich visions of how value can be unlocked, and that partly ties into the reasons that we spoke about for thinking that the technical and the normative interconnected. So if we preemptively level down, we’ll probably design systems that are less good than they could be. And when we think about a design process spanning decades, we really want that kind of ultimate goal, the shining star of alignment to be something that’s quite bright and can steer our efforts towards it. If anything, I would be slightly worried that because these human parliaments and international institutions are so driven by real world politics, that they might not give us the kind of most fully actualized set of ideal aspirations to aim for.

And that’s why philosophers like, of course John Rawls actually propose that we need to think about these questions from a hypothetical point of view. So we need to ask, “What would we choose if we weren’t living in a world where we knew how to leverage our own interests?” And that’s how we identified the real ideal that is acceptable to people, regardless of where they’re located. And also can then be used to steer non-ideal theory or the kind of actual practice and the right direction.

Lucas Perry: So if we have an organization that is trying its best to create aligned and beneficial AGI systems, reasoning about what principles we should embed in it from behind Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance, you’re saying, would have hopefully the same practical implications as if we had a functioning international body for coming up with those principles in the first place.

Iason Gabriel: Possibly. I mean, I’d like to think that ideal deliberation would lead them in the direction of impartial principles for AI. It’s not clear whether that is the case. I mean, it seems that at its very best, international politics has led us in the direction of a kind of human rights doctrine that both accords individuals protection, regardless of where they live and defends the strong claim that they have a right to subsistence and other forms of flourishing. If we use the Veil of Ignorance experiment, I think for AI might even give us more than that, even if a real world parliament never got there. For those of you who are not familiar with this, the philosopher John Rawls says that when it comes to choosing principles for a just society, what we need to do is create a situation in which people don’t know where they are in that society, or what their particular interest is.

So they have to imagine that they’re from behind the Veil of Ignorance. They select principles for that society that they think will be fair regardless of where they end up, and then having done that process and identified principles of justice for the society, he actually holds out the aspiration that people will reflectively endorse them even once the veil has been removed. So they’ll say, “Yes, in that situation, I was reasoning in a fair way that was nonprejudicial. And these are principles that I identified there that continue to have value in the real world.” And we can say what would happen if people are asked to choose principles for artificial intelligence from behind a veil of ignorance where they didn’t know whether they were going to be rich or poor, Christian, utilitarian, Kantian, or something else.

And I think there, some of the kind of common sense material would be surfaced; so people would obviously want to build safe AI systems. I imagine that this idea of preserving human autonomy and control would also register, but for some forms of AI, I think distributive considerations would come into play. So they might start to think about how the benefits and burdens of these technologies are distributed and how those questions play out on a global basis. They might say that ultimately, a value aligned AI is one that has fair distributive impacts on a global basis, and if you follow rules, that it works to the advantage of the least well off people.

That’s a very substantive conception of value alignment, which may or may not be the final outcome of ideal international deliberation. Maybe the international community will get to global justice eventually, or maybe it’s just too thoroughly affected by nationalists interests and other kinds of what, to my mind, the kind of distortionary effects that mean that it doesn’t quite get there. But I think that this is definitely the space that we want the debate to be taking place in. And that actually, there has been real progress in identifying collectively endorsed principles for AI that gives me hope for the future. Not only that we’ll get good ideals, but that people might agree to them, and that they might get democratic endorsement, and that they might be actionable and the sort of thing they can guide real world AI design.

Lucas Perry: Can you add a little bit more clarity on the philosophical questions and issues, which single and multi-agent alignments scenarios supervene on? How do you do inter theoretic comparisons of value if people disagree on normative or meta-ethical beliefs or people disagree on foundational axiomatic principles for bridging the is-ought gap? How is it that systems deal with that kind of disagreement?

Iason Gabriel: I’m hopeful that the three pictures that I outlined so far of the overlapping consensus between different moral beliefs, of democratic debate over a constitution for AI, and of selection of principles from behind the Veil of Ignorance, are all approaches that carry some traction in that regard. So they try to take seriously the fact of real world pluralism, but they also, through different processes, tend to tap towards principles that are compatible with a variety of different perspectives. Although I would say, I do feel like there’s a question about this multi agent thing that may still not be completely clear in my mind, and it may come back to those earlier questions about definition. So in a one person, one agent scenario, you don’t have this question of what to do with pluralism, and you can probably go for a more simple one shot solution, which is align it with the person’s interest, beliefs, moral beliefs, intentions, or something like that. But if you’re interested in this question of real world politics for real world AI systems where a plurality of people are affected, we definitely need these other kinds of principles that have a much richer set of properties and endorsements.

Lucas Perry: All right, there’s Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance. There’s, principle of non domination, and then there’s the democratic process?

Iason Gabriel: Non-domination is a criterion that any scheme for multi-agent value alignment needs to meet. And then we can ask the question, “What sort of scheme would meet this requirement of non-domination?” And there we have the overlapping census with human rights. We have a scheme of democratic debate leading to principles for AI constitution, and we have the Veil of Ignorance as all ideas that we basically find within political theory that could help us meet that condition.

Lucas Perry: All right, so we have spoken at some length then about principles and identifying principles, this goes back to our conversation about the is-ought distinction, and these are principles that we need to identify for setting up an ethical alignment procedure. You mentioned this earlier, when we were talking about this, this distinction between the one true moral theory approach to AI alignment, in contrast to coming up with a procedure for AI alignment that would be broadly endorsed by many people, and would respect the principle of non domination, and would take into account pluralism. Can you unpack this distinction more, and the importance of it?

Iason Gabriel: Yeah, absolutely. So I think that the kind of true moral theory approach, although it is a kind of stylized idea of what an approach to value of alignment might look like, is the sort of thing that could be undertaken just by a single person who is designing the technology or a small group of people, perhaps moral philosophers who think that they have really great expertise in this area. And then they identify the chosen principle and run with it.

The big claim is that that isn’t really a satisfactory way to think about design and values in a pluralistic world where many people will be affected. And of course, many people who’ve gone off on that kind of enterprise have made serious mistakes that were very costly for humanity and for people who are affected by their actions. So the political approach to value alignment paints a fundamentally different perspective and says it isn’t really about one person, or one group running ahead and thinking that they’ve done all the hard work it’s about working out what we can all agree upon, that looks like a reasonable set of moral principles or coordinates to build powerful technologies around. And then, once we have this process in place that outfits the right kind of agreement, then the task is given back to technologists and these are the kind of parameters that are fair process of deliberation has outputted. And this is what we have the authority to encode in machines, whether it’s say human rights or a conception of justice, or some other widely agreed upon values.

Lucas Perry: There are principles that you’re really interested in satisfying, like respecting pluralism, and respecting a principle of non-domination, and the One True Moral Theory approach, risks, violating those other principles. Are you not taking a stance on whether there is a One True Moral Theory, you’re just willing to set that question aside and say, “Because it’s so essential to a thriving civilization that we don’t do moral imposition on one another, that coming up with a broadly endorsed theory is just absolutely the way to go, whether or not there is such a thing as a One True Moral Theory? Does that capture your view?

Iason Gabriel: Yeah. So to some extent, I’m trying to make an argument that will look like something we should affirm, regardless of the metaethical stance that we wish to take. Of course, there are some views about morality that actually say that non-domination is a really important principle, or that human rights are fundamental. So someone might look at these proposals, and from the comprehensive moral perspective, they would say, “This is actually the morally best way to do value alignment, and it involves dialogue, discussion, mutual understanding, and agreement.” However, you don’t need to believe that in order to think that this is a good way to go. If you look at the writing of someone like Joshua Greene, he says that this problem we encounter called the, “Tragedy of common sense morality.” A lot of people have fairly decent moral beliefs, but when they differ, it ends up in violence, and they end up fighting. And you have a hugely negative, moral externality that arises just because people weren’t able to enter this other mode of theorizing, where they said, “Look, we’re part of a collective project, let’s agree to some higher level terms that we can all live by.” So from that point of view, it looks prudent to think about value alignment as a pluralistic enterprise.

That’s an approach that many people have taken with regards to the justification of the institution of the state, and the things that we believe it should protect, and affirm, and uphold. And then as I alluded to earlier, I think that actually, even for some of these anti-realists, this idea of inclusive deliberation, and even the idea of human rights look like quite good candidates for the kind of, “Wouldn’t it be nice?” criterion. So to return to Richard Routley, who is kind of the arch moral skeptic, he does ultimately really want us to live in a world with human rights, he just doesn’t think he has a really good meta-ethical foundation to rest this on. But in practice, he would take that vision forward, I believe in try to persuade other people that it was the way to go by telling them good stories and saying, “Well, look, this is the world with human rights and open-ended deliberation, and this is the world where one person decided what to do. Wouldn’t it be nice in that better world?” So I’m hopeful that this kind of political ballpark has this kind of rich applicability and appeal, regardless of whether people are starting out in one place or the other.

Lucas Perry: That makes sense. So then another aspect of this is, in the absence of moral agreement or when there is moral disagreement, is there a fair way to decide what principles AI should align with? For example, I can imagine religious fundamentalists, at core being antithetical to the project of aligning AI systems, which eventually lead to something smaller than us, they could view it as something like playing God and just be like, “Well, this is just not a project that we should even do.”

Iason Gabriel: So that’s an interesting question, and you may actually be putting pressure on my preceding argument. I think that it is certainly the case that you can’t get everyone to agree on a set of global principles for AI, because some people hold very, very extreme beliefs that are exclusionary, and don’t tend to the possibility of compromise. Typically people who have a fundamentalist orientation of one kind or another. And so, even if we get the pluralistic project off the ground, it may be the case that we have to, in my language, impose our values on those people, and that in a sense, they are dominated. And that leads to the difficult question: why is it permissible to impose beliefs upon those people, but not the people who don’t hold fundamentalist views? It’s a fundamentally difficult question, because what it tends to point to is the idea that beneath this talk about pluralism, there is actually a value claim, which is that you are entitled to non-domination, so long as you’re prepared not to dominate other people, and to accept that there is a moral equality, that means that we need to cooperate and co-habit in a world together.

And that does look like a kind of deep, deep, moral claim that you might need to substantively assert. I’m not entirely sure; I think that’s one that we can save for further investigation, but it’s certainly something that people have said in the context of these debates, that at the deepest level, you can’t escape making some kind of moral claim, because of these cases.

Lucas Perry: Yeah. This is reminding me of the paradox of tolerance by Karl Popper, who talks about free speech ends when you yell, “The theater’s on fire.” And in some sense are then imposing harm on other people. And that we’re tolerant of people within society, except for those who are intolerant of others. And to some extent, that’s a paradox. So similarly we may respect and endorse a principle of non-domination, or non-subjugation, but that ends when there are people who are dominating or subjugating. And the core of that is maybe getting back again to some kind of principle of non-harm related to the wellbeing of sentient creatures.

Iason Gabriel: Yeah. I think that the obstacles that we’re discussing now are very precisely related to that paradox, of course, the boundaries we want to draw on permissible disagreement in some sense is quite minimal or conversely, we might think that the wide affirmation of some aspect of the value of human rights is quite a strong basis for moving forwards, because it says that all human life has value, and that everyone is entitled to basic goods, including goods pertaining to autonomy. So people who reject that really are pushing back against something that is widely and deeply, reflectively endorsed by a large number of people. I also think that with regards to toleration, the anti-realist position becomes quite hard to figure out or quite strange. So you have these people who are not prepared to live in a world where they respect others, and they have this will to dominate, or a fundamentalist perspective.

The anti-realist says, “Well, you know, potentially this, this nicer world, we can move towards.” The anti-realist doesn’t deal in the currency of moral reasons. They don’t really have to worry about it too much; they can just say, “And going to go in that direction with everyone else who agrees with us,” and hold to the idea that it looks like a good way to live. So in a way, the problem with domination is much more serious for people who are moral realists. For the anti-realists, it’s not actually a perspective I inhabit it in my day to day life, so it’s hard for me to say what they would make of it.

Lucas Perry: Well, I guess, just to briefly defend the anti-realist, I imagine that they would say that they still have reasons for morality, they just don’t think that there is an objective epistemological methodology for discovering what is true. “There aren’t facts about morality, but I’m going to go make the same noises that you make about morality. Like I’m going to give reasons and justification, and these are as good as making up empty screeching noises and blah, blahing about things that don’t exist,” but it’s still motivating to other people, right? They still will have reasons and justification; they just don’t think it pertains to truth, and they will use that navigate the world and then justify domination or not.

Iason Gabriel: That seems possible, but I guess for the anti-realist, if they think we’re just fundamentally expressing pro-attitudes, so when I say, “It isn’t justified to dominate others.” I’m just saying, “I don’t like it when this thing happens,” then we’re just dealing in the currency of likes, and I just don’t think you have to be so worried about the problem of domination as you are, if you think that this means something more than someone just expressing an attitude about what they like or don’t. If there aren’t real moral reasons or considerations at stake, if it’s just people saying, “I like this. I don’t like this.” Then you can get on with the enterprise that you believe achieves these positive ends. Of course, the unpleasant thing is you kind of are potentially giving permission to other people to do the same, or that’s a consequence of the view you hold. And I think that’s why a lot of people want to rescue the idea of moral justification as a really meaningful practice, because they’re not prepared to say, “Well, everyone gets on with the thing that they happen to like, and the rest of it is just window dressing.”

Lucas Perry: All right. Well, I’m not sure how much we need to worry about this now. I think it seems like anti-realists and realists basically act the same in the real world. Maybe, I don’t know.

Iason Gabriel: Yeah. In reality, anti-realists tend to act in ways that suggest that on some level they believe that morality has more to it than just being a category error.

Lucas Perry: So let’s talk a little bit here more about the procedure by which we choose evaluative models for deciding which proposed aspects of human preferences or values are good or bad for an alignment procedure. We can have a method of evaluating or deciding which aspects of human values or preferences or things that we might want to bake into an alignment procedure are good or bad, but you mentioned something like having a global fora or having different kinds of governance institutions or vehicles by which we might have conversation to decide how to come up with an alignment procedure that would be endorsed. What is the procedure to decide what kinds of evaluative models we will use to decide what counts as a good alignment procedure or not? Right now, this question is being answered by a very biased and privileged select few in the West, at AI organizations and people adjacent to them.

Iason Gabriel: I think this question is absolutely fundamental. I believe that any claim that we have meaningful global consensus on AI principles is premature, and that it probably does reflect biases of the kind you mentioned. I mean, broadly speaking, I think that there’s two extremely important reasons to try and widen this conversation. The first is that in order to get a kind of clear, well, grounded and well sighted vision on what AI should align with, we definitely need intercultural perspectives. On the assumption that to qoute John Stuart Mill, “no-one has complete access to the truth and people have access to different parts of it.” The bigger the conversation becomes, the more likely it is that we move towards maximal value alignment of the kind that humanity deserves. But potentially more importantly than that, and regardless of the kind of epistemic consequences of widening the debate, I think that people have a right to voice their perspective on topics and technologies that will affect them. If we think of the purpose of a global conversation, partly as this idea of formulating principles, but also bestowing on them a certain authority in light of which we’re permitted to build powerful technologies. Then you just can’t say that they have the right kind of authority and grounding without proper extensive consultation. And so, I would suggest that that’s a very important next step for people who are working in this space. I’m also hopeful that actually these different approaches that we’ve discussed can potentially be mutually supporting. So, I think that there is a good chance that human rights could serve as a foundation or a seed for a good, strong intercultural conversation around AI alignment.

And I’m not sure to what extent this really is the case, but it might be that even some of these ideas about reasoning impartially have currency in a global conversation. And you might find that they are actually quite challenging for affluent countries or for self interested parties, because it would reveal certain hidden biases in the propositions that they have now made or put forward.

Lucas Perry: Okay. So, related to things that we might want to do to come up with the correct procedure for being able to evaluate what kinds of alignment procedures are good or bad, what do you view as sufficient for adequate alignment of systems? We’ve talked a little bit about minimalism versus maximalism, where minimalism is aligning to just some conception of human values and maximalism is hitting on some very idealized and strong set or form of human values. And this procedure is related, at least in the, I guess, existential risk space coming from people like Toby Ord and William MacAskill. They talk about something like a long reflection. If I’m asking you about what might be adequate alignment for systems, one criteria for that might be meeting basic human needs, meeting human rights and reducing existential risk further and further such that it’s very, very close to zero and we enter a period of existential stability.

And then following this existential stability is proposed something like a long reflection where we might more deeply consider ethics and values and norms before we set about changing and optimizing all of the atoms around us in the galaxy. Do you have a perspective here on this sort of most high level timeline of first as we’re aligning AI systems, what does it for it to be adequate? And then, what needs to potentially be saved for something like a long reflection? And then, how something like a broadly endorsed procedure versus a one true moral theory approach would fit into something like a long reflection?

Iason Gabriel: Yes. A number of thoughts on this topic. The first pertains to the idea of existential security and, I guess, why its defined as the kind of dominant goal in the short term perspective. There may be good reasons for this, but I think what I would suggest is that obviously involves trade offs. The world we live in is a very unideal place, one in which we have a vast quantity of unnecessary suffering. And to my mind, it’s probably not even acceptable to say that basically the goal of building AI is, or that the foremost challenge of humanity is to focus on this kind of existential security and extreme longevity while leaving so many people to lead lives that are less than they could be.

Lucas Perry: Why do you think that?

Iason Gabriel: Well, because human life matters. If we were to look at where the real gains in the world are today, I believe it’s helping these people who die unnecessarily from neglected diseases, lack subsistence incomes, and things of that nature. And I believe that has to form part of the picture of our ideal trajectory for technological development.

Lucas Perry: Yeah, that makes sense to me. I’m confused what you’re actually saying about the existential security view as being central. If you compare the suffering of people that exist today, obviously to the astronomical amount of life that could be in the future, is that kind of reasoning about the potential that doesn’t do the work for you for seeing mitigating existential risk as the central concern.

Iason Gabriel: I’m not entirely sure, but what I would say is that on one reading of the argument that’s being presented, the goal should be to build extremely safe systems and not try to intervene in areas about which this more substantive contestation, until there’s been a long delay and a period of reflection, which might mean neglecting some very morally important and tractable challenges that the world is facing at the present moment. And I think that that would be problematic. I’m not sure why we can’t work towards something that’s more ambitious, for example, a human rights respecting AI technology.

Lucas Perry: Why would that entail that?

Iason Gabriel: Well, so, I mean, this is the kind of question about the proposition that’s been put in front of us. Essentially, if that isn’t the proposition, then the long reflection isn’t leaving huge amounts to be deliberated about, right? Because we’re saying, in the short term, we’re going to tether towards global security, but we’re also going to try and do a lot of other things around which there’s moral uncertainty and disagreement, for example, promote fairer outcomes, mobilize in the direction of respecting human rights. And I think that once we’ve moved towards that conception of value alignment, it isn’t really clear what the substance of the long reflection is. So, do you have an idea of what questions would remain to be answered?

Lucas Perry: Yeah, so I guess I feel confused because reaching existential security as part of this initial alignment procedure, doesn’t seem to be in conflict with alleviating the suffering of the global poor, because I don’t think moral uncertainty extends to meeting basic human needs or satisfying basic human rights or things that are obviously conducive to the well-being of sentient creatures. I don’t think poverty gets pushed to the long reflection. I don’t think unnecessary suffering gets pushed to the long reflection. Then the question you’re asking is what is it that does get pushed to the long reflection?

Iason Gabriel: Yes.

Lucas Perry: Then what gets pushed to the long reflection is, is the one true moral theory approach to alignment actually correct? Is there a one true moral theory or is there not a one true moral theory? Are anti-realists correct or are realists correct? Or are they both wrong in some sense or is something else correct? And then, given that, the potential answer or inability to come up with an answer to that would change how something like the cosmic endowment gets optimized. Because we’re talking about billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of years, if we don’t go extinct, and the universe is going to evaporate eventually. But until then, there is an astronomical amount of things that could get done.

And so, the long reflection is about deciding what to actually do with that. And however esoteric it is, the proposals range from you just have some pluralistic optimization process. There is no right way you should live. Things other than joy and suffering matter like, I don’t know, building monuments that calculate mathematics ever more precisely. And if you want to carve out a section of the cosmic endowment for optimizing things that are other than conscious states, you’re free to do that versus coming down on something more like a one true moral theory approach and being like, “The only kinds of things that seem to matter in this world are the states of conscious creatures. Therefore, the future should just be an endeavor of optimizing for creating minds that are ever more enjoying profound states of spiritual enlightenment and spiritual bliss and knowledge.”

The long reflection might even be about whether or not knowledge matters for a mind. “Does it really matter that I am in tune with truth and reality? Should we build nothing but experience machines that cultivate whatever the most enlightened and blissful states of experience are or is that wrong?” The long reflection to me seems to be about these sorts of questions and if the one true moral theory approach is correct or not.

Iason Gabriel: Yeah, that makes sense. And my apologies if I didn’t understand what was already taken care of by the proposal. I think to some extent, in that case, we’re talking about different action spaces. When I look at these questions of AI alignment, I see very significant value questions already arising in terms of how benefits and burdens are distributed. What fairness means? Whether AI needs to be explainable and accountable and things of that nature alongside a set of very pressing global problems that it would be really, really important to address? I think my time horizon is definitely different from this long reflection one. Kind of find it difficult to imagine a world in which these huge, but to some extent prosaic questions have been addressed and in which we then turn our attention to these other things. I guess there is a couple of things that can be said about it.

I’m not sure if this is meant to be taken literally, but I think the idea of pressing pause on technological development while we work out a further set of fundamentally important questions is probably not feasible. It would be best to work with a long term view that doesn’t rest upon the possibility of that option. And then I think that the other fundamental question is what is actually happening in this long reflection? It can be described in a variety of different ways.

Sometimes it sounds like it’s a big philosophical conference that runs for a very, very long time. And at the end of it, hopefully people kind of settle these questions and they come out to the world and they’re like, “Wow, this is a really important discovery.” I mean, if you take seriously the things we’ve been talking about today, you still have the question of what do you do with the people who then say, “Actually, I think you’re wrong about that.” And I think in a sense it recursively pushes us back into the kind of processes that I’ve been talking about. When I hear people talk about the long reflection there does also sometimes seem to be this idea that it’s a period in which there is very productive global conversation about the kind of norms and directions that we want humanity to take. And that seems valuable, but it doesn’t seem unique to the long reflection. That would be incredibly valuable right now so it doesn’t look radically discontinuous to me on that view.

Lucas Perry: All right. Because we’re talking about the long term future here and I bring it up because it’s interesting in considering what questions can we just kind of put aside? These are interesting, but in the real world, they don’t matter a ton or they don’t influence our decisions, but over the very, very long term future, they may matter much more. When I think about a principle like non-domination, it seems like we care about this conception of non-imposition and non-dominance and non-subjugation for reasons of, first of all, well-being. And the reason why we care about this well-being question is because human beings are extremely fallible. And it seems to me that the principle of non-domination is rooted in the lack of epistemic capacity for fallible agents like human beings to promote the well-being of sentient creatures all around them.

But in terms of what is physically literally possible in the universe, it’s possible for someone to know so much more about the well-being of conscious creatures than you, and how much happier and how much more well-being you would be in if you only idealized in a certain way. That as we get deeper and deeper into the future, I have more and more skepticism about this principle of non-domination and non-subjugation.

It seems very useful, important, and exactly like the thing that we need right now, but as we long reflect further and further and, say, really smart, really idealized beings develop more and more epistemic clarity on ethics and what is good and the nature of consciousness and how minds work and function in this universe that I would probably submit myself to a Dyson sphere brain that was just like, “Well, Lucas, this is what you have to do.” And I guess that’s not subjugation, but I feel less and less moral qualms with the big Dyson sphere brain showing up to some early civilization like we are, and then just telling them how they should do things, like a parent does with a child. I’m not sure if you have any reactions to this or how much it even really matters for anything we can do today. But I think it’s potentially an important reflection on the motivations behind the principle of non-domination and non-subjugation and why it is that we really care about it.

Iason Gabriel: I think that’s true. I think that if you consent to something, then almost… I don’t want to say by definition, that’s definitely too strong, but it’s very likely that you’re not being dominated so long as you have sufficient information and you’re not being coerced. I think the real question is what if this thing showed up and you said, “I don’t consent to this,” and the thing said, “I don’t care it’s in your best interests.”

Lucas Perry: Yeah, I’m defending that.

Iason Gabriel: That could be true in some kind of utilitarian, consequentialist, moral philosophy of that kind. And I guess my question is, “Do you find that unproblematic? Or, “Do you have this intuition that there is a further set of reasons you could draw upon, which explain why the entity with greater authority doesn’t actually have the right to impose these things on you?” And I think that it may or may not be true.

It probably is true that from the perspective of welfare, non-denomination is good. But I also think that a lot of people who are concerned about pluralism and non-domination think that it’s value pertains to something which is quite different, which is human autonomy. And that that has value because of the kind of creatures we are, with freedom of thought, a consciousness, a capacity to make our own decisions. I, personally, am of the view that even if we get some amazing, amazing paternalist, there is still a further question of political legitimacy that needs to be answered, and that it’s not permissible for this thing to impose without meeting these standards that we’ve talked about today.

Lucas Perry: Sure. So in the very least, I think I’m attempting to point towards the long reflection consisting of arguments like this. We weren’t participating in coercion before, because we didn’t really know what we’re talking about but now we know what we’re talking about. And so, given our epistemic clarity coercion makes more sense.

Iason Gabriel: It does seem problematic to me. And I think the interesting question is what does time add to robust epistemic certainty? It’s quite likely that if you spend a long time thinking about something, at the end of it, you’ll be like, “Okay, now I have more confidence in a proposition that was on the table when I started?” But does that mean that it is actually substantively justified? And what are you going to say if you think you’re substantively justified, but you can’t actually justify it to other people who are reasonable, rational and informed like you.

It seems to me that even after a thousand years, you’d still be taking a leap of faith of the kind that we’ve seen people take in the past with really, really devastating consequences. I don’t think it’s the case that ultimately there will be a moral theory that’s settled and the confidence in the truth value of it is so high that the people who adhere to it have somehow gained the right to kind of run with it on behalf of humanity. Instead, I think that we have to proceed a small step at a time, possibly in perpetuity and make sure that each one of these small decisions is subject to continuous negotiation, reflection and democratic control.

Lucas Perry: The long reflection though, to me, seems to be about questions like that because you’re taking a strong epistemological view on meta-ethics and that there wouldn’t be that kind of clarity that would emerge over time from minds far greater than our own. From my perspective, I just find the problem of suffering to be very, very, very compelling.

Let’s imagine we have the sphere of utilitarian expansion into the cosmos, and then there is the sphere of pluralistic, non-domination, democratic, virtue ethic, deontological based sphere of expansion. You can, say, run across planets at different stages of evolution. And here you have a suffering hell planet, it’s just wild animals born of Darwinian evolution. And they’re just eating and murdering each other all the time and dying of disease and starvation and other things. And then maybe you have another planet which is an early civilization and there is just subjugation and misery and all of these things, and these spheres of expansion would do completely different things to these planets. And we’re entering super esoteric sci-fi space here. But again, it’s, I think, instructive of the importance of something like a long reflection. It changes what is permissible in what will be done. And so, I find it interesting and valuable, but I also agree with you about the one claim that you had earlier about it being unclear that we could actually pause the breaks and have a thousand year philosophy convention.

Iason Gabriel: Yes, I mean, the one further thing I’d say, Lucas, is bearing in mind some of the earlier provisos we attached to the period before the long reflection, we were kind of gambling on the idea that there would be political legitimacy and consensus around things like the alleviation of needless suffering. So, it is not necessarily that it is the case that everything would be up for grabs just because people have to agree upon it. In the world today, we can already see some nascent signs of moral agreement on things that are really morally important and would be very significant if they were fully realized as ideals.

Lucas Perry: Maybe there is just not that big of a gap between the views that are left to be argued about during the long reflection. But then there is also this interesting question, wrapping up on this part of the conversation, about what did we take previously that was sacred, that is no longer that? An example would be if a moral realist, utilitarian conception ended up just being the truth or something, then rights never actually mattered. Autonomy never mattered, but they functioned as very important epistemic tool sets. And then we’re just like, “Okay, we’re basically doing away with everything that we said was sacred.” We still endorsed having done that. But now it’s seen in a totally different light. There could be something like a profound shift like that, which is why something like long reflection might be important.

Iason Gabriel: Yeah. I think it really matters how the hypothesized shift comes about. So, if there is this kind of global conversation with new information coming to light, taking place through a process that’s non-coercive and the final result seems to be a stable consensus of overlapping beliefs that we have more moral consensus than we did around something like human rights, then that looks like a kind of plausible direction to move in and that might even be moral progress itself. Conversely, if it’s people who have been in the conference a long time and they come out and they’re like, “We’ve reflected a thousand years and now we have something that we think is true.” Unfortunately, I think they ended up kind of back at square one where they’ll meet people who say, “We have reasonable disagreement with you, and we’re not necessarily persuaded by your arguments.”

And then you have the question of whether they’re more permitted to engage in value imposition than people were in the past. And I think probably not. I think if they believe those arguments are so good, they have to put them into a political process of the kind that we have discussed and hopefully their merits will be seen or, if not, there may be some avenues that we can’t go down but at least we’ve done things in the right way.

Lucas Perry: Luckily, it may turn out to be the case that you basically never have to do coercion because with good enough reasons and evidence and argument, basically any mind that exists can be convinced of something. Then it gets into this very interesting question of if we’re respecting a principle of non-domination and non-subjugation, as something like Neuralink and merging with AI systems, and we gain more and more information about how to manipulate and change people, what changes can we make to people from the outside would count as coercion or not? Because currently, we’re constantly getting pushed around in terms of our development by technology and people and the environment and we basically have no control over that. And do I always endorse the changes that I undergo? Probably not. Does that count as coercion? Maybe. And we’ll increasingly gain power to change people in this way. So this question of coercion will probably become more and more interesting and difficult to parse over time.

Iason Gabriel: Yeah. I think that’s quite possible. And it’s kind of an observation that can be made about many of the areas that we’re thinking about now. For example, the same could be said of autonomy or to some extent that’s the flip side of the same question. What does it really mean to be free? Free from what and under what conditions? If we just loop back a moment, the one thing I’d say is that the hypothesis that, you can create moral arguments that are so well-reasoned that they persuade anyone is, I think, the perfect statement of a certain enlightenment perspective on philosophy that sees rationality as the tiebreaker and the arbitrar of progress. In a sense that the whole project that I’ve outlined today rests upon a recognition or an acknowledgement that that is probably unlikely to be true when people reason freely about what the good consist in. They do come to different conclusions.

And I guess, the kind of thing people would point to there as evidence is just the nature of moral deliberation in the real world. You could say that if there were these winning arguments that just won by force of reason, we’d be able to identify them. But, in reality, when we look at how moral progress has occurred, requires a lot more than just reason giving. To some extent, I think the master argument approach itself rests upon mistaken assumptions and that’s why I wanted to go in this other direction. By a twist of fate, if I was mistaken and if the master argument was possible, it would also satisfy a lot of conditions of political legitimacy. And right now, we have good evidence that it isn’t possible so we should proceed in one way. If it is possible, then those people can appeal to the political processes.

Lucas Perry: They can be convinced.

Iason Gabriel: They can be convinced. And so, there is reason for hope there for people who hold a different perspective to my own.

Lucas Perry: All right. I think that’s an excellent point to wrap up on then. Do you have anything here? I’m just giving you an open space now if you feel unresolved about anything or have any last moment thoughts that you’d really like to say and share? I found this conversation really informative and helpful, and I appreciate and really value the work that you’re doing on this. I think it’s sorely needed.

Iason Gabriel: Yeah. Thank you so much, Lucas. It’s been a really, really fascinating conversation and it’s definitely pushed me to think about some questions that I hadn’t considered before. I think the one thing I’d say is that this is really… A lot of it is exploratory work. These are questions that we’re all exploring together. So, if people are interested in value alignment, obviously listeners to this podcast will be, but specifically normative value alignment and these questions about pluralism, democracy, and AI, then please feel free to reach out to me, contribute to the debate. And I also look forward to continuing the conversation with everyone who wants to look at these things and develop the conversation further.

Lucas Perry: If people want to follow you or get in contact with you or look at more of your work, where are the best places to do that?

Iason Gabriel: I think if you look on Google Scholar, there is links to most of the articles that I have written, including the one that we were discussing today. People can also send me an email, which is just my first name Iason@deepmind.com. So, yeah.

Lucas Perry: All right.

End of recorded material

Peter Railton on Moral Learning and Metaethics in AI Systems

 Topics discussed in this episode include:

  • Moral epistemology
  • The potential relevance of metaethics to AI alignment
  • The importance of moral learning in AI systems
  • Peter Railton’s, Derek Parfit’s, and Peter Singer’s metaethical views

 

Timestamps: 

0:00 Intro
3:05 Does metaethics matter for AI alignment?
22:49 Long-reflection considerations
26:05 Moral learning in humans
35:07 The need for moral learning in artificial intelligence
53:57 Peter Railton’s views on metaethics and his discussions with Derek Parfit
1:38:50 The need for engagement between philosophers and the AI alignment community
1:40:37 Where to find Peter’s work

 

Citations:

You can find Peter’s work here

 

We hope that you will continue to join in the conversations by following us or subscribing to our podcasts on Youtube, Spotify, SoundCloud, iTunes, Google Play, StitcheriHeartRadio, or your preferred podcast site/application. You can find all the AI Alignment Podcasts here.

You can listen to the podcast above or read the transcript below. 

Lucas Perry: Welcome to the AI Alignment Podcast. I’m Lucas Perry. Today, we have a conversation with Peter Railton that explores metaethics, moral epistemology, moral learning, and how these areas of philosophy may or may not inform AI alignment. The core problem that this episode explores is that as systems become more and more autonomous and increasingly participate in social roles that require social functioning, it will become increasingly necessary for AI systems to be familiar with and sensitive to morally salient features of the world. This requires that systems have the capacity for moral learning and developing an understanding of human normative processes and beliefs. On top of that, structuring any kind of procedure for moral learning in AI systems will bring in metaethical beliefs and assumptions that would be wise to understand and be explicit about. For a little more context, some key motivating questions for this episode to consider are: when and what is the degree to which AI systems will require the capacity for moral learning? How might metaethics inform or not inform AI alignment? How do you structure a system such that it can engage in moral learning in a way that would be broadly endorsed and would satisfy other ethical or meta-ethical principles we broadly care about?

For some more background, I did a podcast with Peter Singer on his transition from being a moral anti-realist to a moral realist. That episode is titled “On Becoming a Moral Realist with Peter Singer.” In that episode we explore his metaethical views, and Peter Singer mentions conversations and debate between Derek Parfit and Peter Railton on issues in metaethics. So, the second half of this podcast is dedicated to understanding and unpacking Peter Railton’s metaethics and how it compares with Peter Singer’s and Derek Parfit’s views. This podcast is pretty philosophy heavy, so if you’re into that and the ethics of AI then you’ll appreciate this episode. You can subscribe to and follow this podcast on your preferred podcasting platform, by searching for “Future of Life.”

Peter Railton is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He has a PhD from Princeton and primarily researches ethics and the philosophy of science. He focuses especially on questions about the nature of objectivity, value, norms, and explanation. Recently, he has also begun working in aesthetics, moral psychology, and the theory of action. And with that, let’s get into our conversation with Peter Railton.

Just to start off here, sometimes I’ve heard that metaethics doesn’t matter, or one might wonder when does metaethics ever matter in real life anyway? I’m curious, do you have any thoughts on whether metaethics matters at all for AI alignment?

Peter Railton: Well, in the most general sense, metaethics concerns, questions about the nature of morality its foundation, the possibility of moral knowledge, how we might acquire it, the meanings of moral claims, how they stand in relation to our other forms of knowledge. And so it does seem to me as if metaethics is important in thinking about the problems of ethics in AI, apparently because I think a lot of people have in the back of their minds, skeptical concerns about morality. And therefore, they doubt whether there could be objective value. They think perhaps value is entirely subjective. And if that’s your approach, then you might say the challenge of creating ethical AI is not a very well defined problem.

What would be the subjective attitude of a properly aligned AI system? You might consult the population and find out what the average point of view is. But we know the average point of view right now is very different from what it was 200 or 300 years ago. We think in some ways it’s improved since then. And we think in some ways where we are now could be improved. So we can’t reduce the question of ethics in AI to something like opinion sampling, and that’s because morality has objective dimensions and we use these to criticize our preferences and our opinions. And so any decent ethics for AI would build into the concept, the possibility of correction and criticism. And for that, you need some thought of what would constitute correction or criticism? How would we justify moral claims? And that takes us to the heart of metaethics.

Lucas Perry: Right. And there’s a lot of moral anti realists or people who think that morality is subjective in, I guess, hard sciences and computer science in general. So this also applies to the alignment community. If one feels that moral claims or moral attitudes are subjective, then this choice that you mentioned to take the average of general popular opinion is itself a moral choice, which is the expression of one owns subjective moral attitude from that point of view. And within a subjective framework, there’s no way to resolve that, except take the expression of all of the power dynamics of everyone’s subjective moral attitudes and see what comes out of that, right?

Peter Railton: Well, yeah, that would be one of the problems. The project of creating ethical AI or AI alignment, as it’s sometimes called, can’t be the problem of giving our value system to machines because there is no unique value system that we possess. It could be the project of trying to make it possible for the machine to learn the most justified value system. And part of the problem, I think, is that people have exaggerated notions of what it would take to justify moral claims. They assume, for example, that there’s a huge gulf between facts and values, that there are no reasonable ways of bridging that gulf, and that in general, what it would take to have objective morality would look something like the universe with what God would do, only without God.

One of the problems with that thought is that that’s a model of morality as a set of commands given by some kind of a divine enforcer. And if you think that absent such a divine enforcer, morality could only be subjective, then I think you’re missing the idea of what morality really does. The existence of a divine enforcer wouldn’t bring morality into existence. A divine enforcer could be either good or malevolent. And so understanding what it is to do moral criticism should be an integral part of the challenge of thinking about ethics and AI. But looking at moral criticism, we have many practices of moral criticism, and those aren’t, strictly speaking, subjective, and we value them because they help correct our subjective opinions.

Lucas Perry: So I think there’s two parts of metaethics that I would like to see if you have any thoughts on how they may or may not apply here. Metaethical epistemology, how is it that you know things about metaethics? And whatever may be metaphysically true about ethics or not. So you brought up religion there. So in terms of, I guess, what would be called Divine Command Theory, morality would have a metaphysically very solid ground as being codified by God or something like that.

Peter Railton: Actually, I’d say that that wouldn’t get us a solid metaphysical ground. The fact that commands come from a being that supremely powerful, and even one that’s supremely knowing would not make those commands moral commands. Those conditions are perfectly compatible with immoral values. What we would need is a perfectly knowledgeable, entirely powerful, and all good God. A so-called AAA God. But that means the concept of good is independent of the concept of God itself, and understanding what it would be for the commands of a divine super powerful being to be good just takes us right back to the question of the nature of morality. We don’t solve it by introducing supreme beings.

Lucas Perry: Right, right. So I’m not trying to justify or lay out the Divine Command Theory. Only using it to, I guess, attempt to explain how epistemology and metaphysics fit into metaethics. To me, it seems like what is relevant here to AI alignment is that how one believes one can know things about metaethics and whether or not there can be agreement upon metaethical epistemology would be the foundation upon which metaethical moral learning machine systems could be expressed.

There is sort of a meta view on the epistemology of metaethics, where one could say, “Because there are no moral facts, the epistemology is whatever human beings are doing to think about moral thought.” And there isn’t a correct epistemology. Whereas one could, whether through naturalism in your metaethics, or through non-naturalism in Peter Singer’s ethics, believe there to be moral truths, and that thus there is a correct epistemology about metaethics, and that that epistemology of metaethics could be used to instantiate metaethical learning in machine systems.

Peter Railton: So one thought would be, there is one true morality and we’re capable of knowing it. That itself wouldn’t get us very far in epistemology until we could say what those methods of knowing are. An approach that’s got something like that as an assumption, but that doesn’t assume that we know what the destination is ultimately going to be, would be to ask, “Do we have good practices of moral criticism? And do those help us to solve actual problems, social problems, interpersonal problems, problems with our own lives?” And then to look at the ways in which we use morality in these contexts to solve problems.

And that brings it down to the level that it’s something that comes within the scope of what can be learned. And if we look at children’s learning, we see that their development as moral creatures proceeds in pace with their understanding of causality, their understanding of theory of mind, their capacity to form a counterfactual thoughts, because it’s really an integrated body of general understanding. And so for example, the idea of solutions that are positive sums of game theoretic challenges, that’s something that can be agreed upon by all parties to be a desirable thing. And so looking at strategies that have the possibility of yielding positive sums, cooperative strategies, strategies of trustworthiness, of signaling strategies, which enable us to coordinate with each other, understand each other’s intentions, those have a justification that we can give in terms that are not tied to any one particular person’s interests, which address interests generally, and which we can defend in an impartial way.

And so that would be an example of a way in which we could say those are more reasonable solutions, more justified solutions. There’s an analogy here with epistemology generally. If someone were to come to me and say, “Well, you claim to have knowledge, how do you demonstrate that? How would you show that your understanding of knowledge is genuine knowledge?” I’d have to say, “Well, sorry, I can’t demonstrate that. Any demonstration would presuppose knowledge. And so I can’t pull it out of a hat and I can’t derive it from nothing.” So what can I do? I can say, “Well, here our practices of epistemic criticism. And while we have disagreements in various places about what counts as evidence or what does not, do those practices deliver the kinds of results that we would expect from reasonable epistemologies, making possible things like scientific inquiry and technology and so on?

And we can say, “Well, that’s what epistemology could be expected to give us. We do have methods that can improve our ability to solve such problems in just those ways. We can find various ways to justify them in terms of probabilities, looking for ways in which we can increase accuracy and estimations.” And so those are different ways in which by looking at our actual practices of epistemic criticism, we try to get some traction on the problem of knowledge. And I would argue we should do the same thing about morality. If we start from the standpoint of skepticism, in the case of knowledge, we will end with skepticism. The same would be true with ethics, but I see no more reason to do it in ethics than in epistemology. We surely must know a great deal about what’s good for us, good for one another. And we have well-developed practices of moral assessment that we use in our own lives, and we use in our collective institutions. So I would say, if we look to those, then we don’t see just subjective opinion. It’s quite different from that and we see a lot of constraints.

Lucas Perry: So I do want to explore more arguments around metaethics with you. And we’re intending to do that after we discuss moral learning here. Now, in terms of moral epistemology and the epistemology of metaethics, I’m interested in this part of the conversation in setting up an attempting to illustrate that whether one is going to take a skeptical view on moral epistemology or not. That moral learning and our view on moral epistemology is essential and important in the alignment and development of AI systems. And here you’re defending a more realist account of epistemology in ethics.

Peter Railton: Well, you could say that I, myself, am a realist, but what I’ve been saying so far, a pragmatist about ethics could say just as well. John Dewey would say something very similar. Various kinds of non realists, but who are nonetheless objectivists in ethics, Kantians, for example, Constructivists, and so on. What I’ve said it was really neutral territory for a wide range of views in metaethics. And it doesn’t presuppose in particular, a form of naturalism or a form of realism. That’s actually a tremendous amount to build upon so that when we think about how to design robots to understand the world, we have a lot of knowledge about what sorts of systems would be well-designed for doing that.

Similarly, if we want to build a robot who can interact creatively and productively with other robots, solve problems of coordination, reduce conflict, realize longterm goals, interact successfully with people, recognize their interests, take their interests into account, being relatively impartial with regard to interests that are at stake, those are not mysterious in the same way that the skeptic seems to think they are. Because again, they’re already integrated in our practice and as Hume pointed out a long time ago, skepticism doesn’t survive very well once we leave the closeted philosophical study. People go out and they act as if they had knowledge of the world and they act as if there are things that people could do to them or that they could do that would be better or worse, right or wrong. They think about how they would treat their children. They think about how they should behave with respect to their students or their professor. That doesn’t take us into the misty realms of metaphysics, but it does take us into the practices of moral criticism and self criticism.

Lucas Perry: So could you unpack just a little bit more about why this view is neutral?

Peter Railton: So for example, I’ve mentioned a couple of features of moral thought. One feature of moral thought is that it takes a kind of impartiality seriously. It gives equal weight to all those effected. That’s something that Kantians and Utilitarians and many other moral theorists would agree on. Another feature of moral thought is that it’s concerned with general reasons. Similar cases have to be treated in a similar way. That leads to a doctrine known as supervenience. We can’t invent moral distinctions that don’t correspond to real distinctions, in fact. Another feature is that morality has to do with reciprocity, relations of mutual gain and mutual benefit. Another is that morality involves taking oneself and others as ends and not as mere means.

Those are all normative theories. But if you then ask, well, “What about the metaethical side? Could a pragmatist about ethics say the same things?” And the answer seems to be, yes, the pragmatist sees ethics is essentially about people solving the human problems that they face in ways that meet these kinds of desiderata. The person who believes that there’s a rationalist foundation, believes that you can know a priori that these constraints exist of impartiality and so on. But as you can see from Singer’s work, the result of applying his form of rationalism is not dramatically different from the results of applying my form of naturalism. And that’s because the target that we’re all working on, ethics that is, has a great deal of determinant structure. And so any metaethical theory is going to have to capture a lot of that structure.

Lucas Perry: And so, sorry, what is the relationship about how this is instructive for why metaethics matters for AI alignment?

Peter Railton: Well, the suggestion was, well, we should know something about what ethics is in order to answer that question about how we might gain moral knowledge. If we can gain moral knowledge, what moral knowledge might consist in? That’s where we started. And then I tried to suggest a bunch of considerations, a bunch of features, that I could call obvious features of moralities of practice. Because I think our practice is not just at the normative level. People also have implicit metaviews in ethics. They demonstrate that by, for example, their knowledge of how you can determine morally relevant considerations in situations. So they understand what kinds of considerations are or aren’t morally relevant. They understand the distinction between morality and etiquette, between morality and law, between morality and self-interest. So they have a grasp of a bunch of these obvious features of morality.

And those are not just features of one or another normative theory. They’re are features of virtually all normative theories and features that any metaethic is going to have to accommodate, unless it’s going to be skeptical. So that’s why I say that there’s a great deal of common ground, not because the fundamental explanations are going to be the same, but there is an explanatory target, which has a great deal of structure and which indeed all these theories have to explain. And that requires then that metaethical theories be adequate to that.

Lucas Perry: I see. So that is already structuring metaethical epistemology is what you’re saying?

Peter Railton: Yeah. It gives you quite a bit of structure.

Lucas Perry: Yeah. That’s just reminding me about how Peter Singer talks about this one philosopher in his book, The Point of View of the Universe, discusses how there are a few axioms of morality and they seem to touch upon these convergent principles that you’re talking about here. Now, on a realist’s account of metaethics, there would be something like a one true moral theory. And if one takes the one true moral theory view seriously, then the problem of AI alignment would be to cultivate a procedure for coming up with the correct moral epistemology in order to find the one true moral theory, or to discover the one true moral theory ourselves, and then align AI systems to that.

Now, if one believes that there is not one true moral theory, and there is only the evolution and extrapolation of human normative processes, and preferences, and metapreferences, then one might not want to come at the AI alignment problem from the perspective of a one true moral theory approach. And as a general note, I’m taking this language from Iason Gabriel, who will be on the podcast soon. And so in the secondary scenario, that is not using the one true moral theory approach, one would want to come up with a broadly acceptable procedure for aligning AI systems that didn’t presume to try to discover a one true moral theory. Do you have any reactions to these two ideas or approaches to alignment?

Peter Railton: Yeah. The question of whether one thinks there is one true theory is somewhat different from the question of whether when things were close to it or we have good ways of knowing it. I myself, although I’m a realist, I recognize that there’s a good chance that my moral views are wrong and my metaethical views are wrong. And so I don’t want to just put all of my energy into thinking, “Well, how would we discover the one true moral Theory?” I would want to think more robustly. And again, I can make an analogy with epistemology. If you go into a philosophy of science department or a statistics department, you’ll find that there’s a tremendous debate between people who think that Bayesianism is the right kind of approach for evidence and people who think that standard methods of social science are the best methods of evidence gathering.

You’ll find a tremendous amount of disagreement. So if we’re trying to build a robot who understands its environment, we don’t want to say, “Well, we have to figure out which one of those theories is correct before we can build a robot to understand its environment.” You might say, “We want a robot that’s got a robust capacity to learn, and that would deliver results, reasonably approximated by a Bayesian, or an inductivist, or someone using social science statistics. They’re not going to agree on everything. Where there’s overlap, we should try to build a machine that can stay in the overlap, we should try to build the machine that’s not brittle, such that it makes epistemic commitments that are at the far edge of one or another of these views.

And so I would say our task is to build a system that’s robust. And that means building into it the fact that we don’t know what this one true theory is. And so therefore we want as far as possible to accommodate an array of approaches, all of which have very strong reasoning behind them. You could think that we’re not trying to build an AI system that discovers the one true theory. We’re trying to build one that isn’t going to be dependent upon exactly the target that it hits, but rather could be successful in a array of possible environments.

Lucas Perry: So, I mean, adjacent to this and promoted and discussed by people like Toby Ord and William MacAskill, would be this human existential procedure for moving into the future, where it’s like, we’re going to align AI systems, whatever that means. And that alignment will hopefully not lock in any values or any particular kind of alignment procedure, but will ensure existential security for humanity, such that existential risk just keeps going down to zero and is near zero. And then we use this existentially secure situation to do a long reflection on value, and what is good, and what may be true or not true about ethics. And then with sufficient consideration, then we can engage in populating the stars and optimizing things the way that we see fit. So what is your view on this proposed long reflection?

Peter Railton: Insofar as I understand it, I don’t have any objection to it. I’m not sure I do understand it. One of the things that you just in passing was that we were going to try to design these systems to behave as we see fit. I myself am not sure I know how it is fit to behave. And I certainly know that I have some mistaken beliefs about that. And I would hope that just as artificial intelligence may help us correct certain of our views on cosmology or in medicine, artificial intelligence could help us correct certain of our views and ethics.

We’ve seen a tremendous amount of evolution in people’s fundamental moral convictions over time. Some have stayed relatively similar. Others have changed dramatically. And we would, I think, do best to think of the artificial extension of intelligence as one way in which we can get a perspective on these issues and situations and problems that isn’t just our own, and that won’t have the same priors as our own, and won’t have the same presuppositions, and they should be included. We should think of these as his agents.

They will have interests just as we have interests, and the standard would not be, what do we see fit, where we mean something like we humans, but what will we see fit as we, the humans and the artificial systems continue our evolution and our cultural development. And we want to think that the path that we should follow is one that leaves open that kind of development rather than constraining it to fit what happens to be our current set of moral convictions, which again are not shared. There are too many disagreements in order to think that we could just write down the rules. Long reflection, I think will also tell us that we need a dynamic picture. And we should have some convictions that are more confident, closer to the core. We should have methods and practices that meet reasonable standards of justification and objectivity, and we should be prepared to learn.

I can’t, I’m afraid, to think of a way to guarantee against the existential risk from artificial intelligence or even our own intelligence, which may be more problematic. But I do suspect that the best way to contend with problems with existential risk is to face them as communities of inquirers.

Lucas Perry: All right. So I think you’ve done an excellent job explaining the importance of moral learning and moral epistemology here, given that the ongoing cultivation of more wholesome and enlightened moral value and moral thinking is always on the horizon. Now, you have some perspective and research that you’ve done on moral learning in humans and the importance and necessity of that. I’m curious here now then to relate some of that research that you’ve done in moral learning in humans to how AI systems of increasing autonomy may also wish to take on the kind of moral epistemology that infants and young humans may have.

Peter Railton:

I wouldn’t say that I’ve done research in this exactly. I’ve certainly explored others’ research in this and try to best I can to learn from it. One of the things that’s impressed me in the literature as it’s evolved over the last couple of decades is how much the learning of children is accomplished, not via the explicit teaching, but by the children’s own experience. What we’ve learned recently, and this is not from developmental psychology, but from various kinds of models of machine learning is that very complex structures can be learned experientially. There are powerful techniques which we can add to that kind of probabilistic learning in order to create knowledge of general principles, to do something like build a structured understanding of language that would enable a child to speak fluently, to understand what others are saying and to engage with them that does not require either an innate grammar or explicit instruction in language as such. That’s a kind of a model of how we also seem to acquire our social normative knowledge.

If you think about the perspective of the infant, one thing that we’ve learned from the animal research is that animals don’t just build a spatial map in relation to themselves. They don’t just build an egocentric map of their environment. They also build grid-like maps that are non perspectival, and they navigate by combining these two kinds of information, perspectival and non-perspectival information. Infants seem to do something similar in learning about learning. They not only represent their relations with individual adults and whether those benefit them or not, but they also seem to construct general representations of whether a given adult is competent or helpful in third party interactions and to use that aperspectival information to make decisions about who they’re going to learn from or pay more attention to. They start doing this surprisingly early on. And so at the same time that they’re constructing the ego centered world, they’re constructing a non-centered representation of the world that includes normative features like reliability, competency, helpfulness, cooperativeness.

And so the child in coming to represent the world around them is constructing representations that have the initial form of moral representations. It turns out to be efficient for learning to be a successful human being that one construct representations spontaneously that have this quasi-moral structure. And that would suggest to me that if machines develop as agents, agents interacting with other agents, agents capable of solving a range of problems, capable of having sustained interactions with humans to solve open-ended problems, that they will also find that they do better if they can construct these quasi-moral representations of situations. And so that means that they will be acquiring sensitivity to morally relevant information through the very task of acquiring social competence, linguistic competence, epistemic competence in a social world.

So there’s a kind of picture here that congrues nicely with the fact that we now know that complex models can be acquired through experiential learning. That suggests that there is a promising pathway toward the development of theory of mind, causal inference, representation of social value from a objective or non-personal perspective. There is an argument for thinking that that’s actually a fundamental core part of our capacity as intelligent beings capable of successful social interaction. That suggests that this is not a peculiarity. It’s not culturally specific. And so why not use similar methods in our interactions with artificial agents to enable artificial agents to acquire these kinds of quasi-moral mappings?

Lucas Perry: So the key thing to draw out from here is that there is this distinction between explicit and implicit learning of morality, and you’re remarking about how there isn’t much explicit moral learning in infants and children. Most of this moral learning comes from simply experience and interacting with the world rather than explicit instruction about what is right and wrong.

Peter Railton: There’s tremendous cultural variability in that within our society and across societies as to how much explicit moral instruction children are given. What’s fascinating is that even in societies where children get very little explicit moral instruction, they nonetheless acquire these capacities. Similarly with language, there are some societies like upper middle class US society where parents talk extensively with children. There are other societies where parents do not, and yet the children can become fluent linguistic agents. So my thought is that the explicit theory isn’t really the thing that’s doing the fundamental work. Even to understand what parents are trying to do when they give you explicit world instructions to understand how to apply those or what they might mean, the child is already going to have to have quite a complex aperspectival representation of the social situation. The thought here is that there’s some places explicit theory, some places less explicit theory, but the result in terms of the development of behaviors are very similar.

A good example of this is that around age three or four children who are given a command by an adult in authority, if that command violates a reasonable norm against harm will balk and refuse to perform it. So if a substitute teacher comes in one day and says, “I’m the teacher today, and in my classroom, you have to raise your hand before you speak,” children in the classroom will start raising their hand before they speak. If the teacher says instead, “I’m the teacher here, and in my classroom, children jab the point of their pencil into the child next to them when they wish to speak,” they’ll stop. They won’t do this. And if they’re asked why they won’t say, “Well, that’s not the way we do it.” They’ll say, “It would harm the other child.”

And so that suggests that even an attempt by a figure of authority to give a norm in a situation where children can perfectly well understand that there is a scope of legitimate authority, put your hand up before you speak, they will distinguish between that kind of conventional authority and moral authority. And that’s an autonomous action on their part. They’re not getting rewarded for it. In fact, the teachers, they either send them out of the room, send a note home to their parents, but they balk because they can represent the situation in these quasi-moral terms. And when they do that, they say, “No, this is not a good solution to the problem.” That suggests to me that even if we were to think that children learn by being given explicit instructions by people in authority, they actually independently learn that they can resist that and will resist it.

Lucas Perry: Right. So we’re in a position where evolution has cultivated and embedded in us, a kind of moral learning, where there is a certain degree of implicit and explicit moral learning, depending on your culture and where you’re from. And as you’re saying, luckily there’s strong convergence on this ability of moral learning to lead human beings to agreeing on say in the case of stabbing the other child, that would be something like a principle of unnecessary harm to another person. That seems to be for most human beings something that is strongly converged upon pretty early, unless your environment is particularly pernicious or something. And that there is this convergence because of how our moral learning is structured given evolution. And that, that moral learning enables in us a kind of moral autonomy that’s there from an early age.

And there is a question of how this moral learning is best structured in say both people and in machine systems. And then there’s the question of moral learning from the outside. What kind of environment is most conducive to moral learning? Are there insights into this that can begin pivoting us into the relationship or importance of moral learning in AI systems?

Peter Railton: Perhaps so. Actually there’s a fair amount of evidence that even infants brought up in some very difficult situations will nonetheless develop these forms of pro sociality and cooperativeness, partly because they become especially important in those situations even to solving the most basic problems or meeting the most basic needs. So I wouldn’t think that the mere difficulty of the situation was sufficient to prevent this kind of learning. On the other hand, if the child is given the wrong incentives, they’re also going to learn a whole bunch of other stuff like you can’t count on other people, you can’t trust other people.

So put this from the standpoint of artificial agents. We want the artificial agents in our world, whether they’re a companion for an elderly person or a autonomous vehicle or a telephone answering service system, we want those systems to be sensitive to these kinds of moral considerations and capable of a degree of autonomy. If for example, there is a system that’s looking after an elderly person and some vital sign of the elderly person is showing a problem, and the person says, “I don’t want to report that. I don’t like having people know this information about me,” or maybe they’re concerned that the doctor will prescribe something that they won’t like, I hope to have systems, which can in that situation think, “Is this the kind of thing that I should keep from the physician? It’s the preference of this individual, but this preference may not be the best interest of the individual in this case.”

And so on autonomous system would be able to make that kind of assessment. Could get it wrong, could get it right, could learn from it, but I wouldn’t want a system to be such that they would simply take over wholesale the preferences of the person that they are interacting with. And of course the same thing is going to be true with self-driving cars and with question answering systems and so on. They will need a certain amount of autonomy in order to do those jobs effectively. And in order for that to happen for them to have that autonomy, they’ll have to have their own representations of the moral structures of the situations and have the capacity to construct those.

I suspect that if we really do want to create intelligent systems that are capable of this kind of autonomous self-critical and critical moral thought, the way to do so is very much like the way children do so. And in so doing, we run the risk of creating some autonomy systems won’t always agree with us, but have we done what’s appropriate so that when they exercise that autonomy, their chance of getting things right is good at least as our chance of getting things, right? So you could think of this in the kind of adversarial picture where you’re trying to see if you can discriminate between the moral judgments of the machine and the moral judgments of the individual and the machine, and the individual could be part of a learning process that improves the machine’s overall model and generative model of situations.

Lucas Perry: So there would be the question of, how do you structure a system such that it can learn moral learning in a way that would be broadly endorsed or would satisfy other ethical or meta-ethical principles that we have? That is double-edged in so far as if you screw it up, then the thing is autonomous and can disagree with you. And the capacity to disagree would either be detrimental in the case in which it is wrong in its moral learning, or it would be enlightening for both us and the world and the machine if it were right about morality when we weren’t. How do you think about and balance this risk between the possible enlightenment that may come from embedding AI systems with moral learning and also the potential catastrophe if it’s done too quickly and incorrectly?

Peter Railton: Yeah. Wish I had an answer. If you think about it, the existence of humans with malicious intentions means that if artificially intelligent systems don’t have this kind of moral autonomy, they’re going to be very willing servants. So you might say, “Well, there’s a risk on the other side, which is that if they aren’t capable of any kind of criticism or autonomy, then they will be much too willing and much too readily deployed and much too manipulable by humans whose purposes I’m afraid to say are not always benign.” If you were thinking about the problem of raising a child, you would say, “Well, I don’t want to raise a child who simply take orders. I want to raise a child who can raise questions as well.”

I think our only defense against malicious humans with extremely intelligent systems at their disposal is to try to ally with intelligence systems to create a comparable counter force. And that counter force is going to be operating out way past our understanding because it’s going to be in competition with systems. They can operate extremely fast and take into account a large number of variables. And so we better be building systems which, as they get further and further out in this kind of a competition, have some kind of a core where they are responsive to morally relevant features even at the far extent of their development.

And so if you think about it as trying to build a moral core, then that core can figure in their operation even as they become more and more intelligent. They can use the intelligence to gain information and perspective and capacity to understand situations that can improve their understanding. But if we don’t do something like this, we will really be and other artificial systems will be prey to those who have and want to implement malicious and manipulative intentions. So I balanced the risk partly by thinking, I can’t think of a very good way to defend against the perils of malicious combinations of human and artificial intelligence other than to develop more trustworthy forms of human and artificial intelligence interaction. And that requires according these systems some autonomy and some trust.

Lucas Perry: That makes sense to me. And I think it addresses some important dimensions of the soon to be proliferation of AI.

Peter Railton: To me, what are the most exciting features of more recent developments in artificial intelligence is that they give us for the first time, I think, a plausible model of intuitive knowledge and knowledge that it could be implicit, but nonetheless be highly structured, contain a great deal of information, contain a capacity to engage in simulation and evaluation. So I would expect that the structure of moral knowledge could be like our structure of common sense knowledge generally. It could be quite distributed. It could be quite a complicated system, not a system of extracted principles. There might be some general features that are important, and I think that’s bound to be true. And that is true when these systems learn, but we don’t have to think that the kind of competency that they would have, if it isn’t something like that, is therefore undisciplined and therefore lacks power or reliability.

So for the first time, anyhow, I thought here is a picture of how intuitive intelligence might look. And of course we can’t introspect the structure of such knowledge and it does not have a readily introspectable propositional structure. But it is capable nonetheless of carrying and modeling and engaging in quite complex computations, simulations, action guidance, control of motor systems in ways that look like intuitive intelligence. Now I realize we’re a long way from the way the brain actually functions, but even to have these models, it gives us a kind of proof of concept of the possibility of something like intuitive knowledge.

Lucas Perry: Right. So if we’re building AI systems as willing slaves who optimize the preferences of whoever is able to embed those in the machine, there’s no defense in that world against malevolent preferences other than not allowing the proliferation of AI to begin with.

Peter Railton: And we’re already past that point. Enough has proliferated and there’s enough inequality of wealth and power in the world to guarantee that other proliferation will take place. It’s already the case that we can’t count on keeping this genie in the bottle and obviously don’t want to do so. I’d say we’re now in the phase where we need to have an active, constructive program of starting to build AI agents that are actively responsive to morally relevant considerations, are good at solving coordination problems, are good at this kind of interaction and capable of the kind of insight needed to be potential moral agents.

Lucas Perry: Right. And you argue that as the systems inhabit increasingly social roles in society and are constantly interacting with other agents and with the world, it’s increasingly important that they be sensitive to morally relevant features. Without this, again, malevolent humans or humans with misaligned values that are counter to most of the rest of humanity can abuse or use systems more freely if they’re not already sensitive to morally relevant features. And that if there is an ecosystem of AIs, purely altruistic systems which are not tuned into morally relevant features can be abused by other AIs as well.

Peter Railton: Yes, that’s right. One thing that’s gotten me to feel some conviction about this possibility is that the one kind of experiments that I do run are thought experiments. And I’ve been for years running moral thought experiments in my moral philosophy classes. And in recent years, I’ve been able to do so using a system that allows students to confidentially record their answers to problems like moral dilemmas or questions about interpreting moral situations or motives. And what’s impressed me over the years is how coherent and consistent these responses are.

And what leapt out, for example, from the familiar trolley problem was that mediating their moral judgments seem to be a model of the agents that are involved, a model of what kind of an agent would perform an action of a certain kind. And what kind of responses such an agent would receive from others in the community? Would they be trustworthy? Would they not be trustworthy? And so, instead of thinking there’s just these arbitrary differences in preference between throwing a switch and pushing someone off a footbridge, and there’s no real principle there, and no one’s found a principle to cover these cases, you can think now there’s this intuitive competency people have and understanding situations and characters and what kinds of persons would respond in what ways and situations and what it would be like to have those persons in our community.

And once you look at it that way you can get a tremendous amount of consistency in people’s responses, which suggested to me that they are doing this kind of generative modeling of situations and doing so in a way that does predict to their actual judgments. And if I ask, “Well, why did you make that judgment?” they’ll say, “I don’t know. It was just an intuition.”

Lucas Perry: Yeah. So the thought experiment that you’re pointing to, a lot of people would flip the switch in the trolley thought experiment to switch it to the track where there’s only one person and then if you changed it so that there’s a person on a bridge who is sufficiently large, that if you push them off the bridge, they will stop the trolley from killing five people on the track. The intuitive response that you’re pointing out is that people are less likely to want to push someone off of a bridge than to flip a switch. And you’re like, well, what’s really the difference? In the thought experiment, there’s not much of a difference, but the intuition that you’re pointing out, the morally relevant feature that is subtle and implicit is that we don’t want to live in a world where there are the kinds of people who have the capacity to push people off of bridges.

Peter Railton: In that kind of a setting, yes.

Lucas Perry: Yeah.

Peter Railton: And you can give them a whole array of other scenarios in which the agent would have to do something like pushing someone to a grisly death and where they will agree that it should be done for example, in situations where self-defense is needed against, for example, the terrorist action. And again, you’ve asked them, “Well, would you trust an agent who would perform such an action?” then the answer is they would actually have more trust in such an agent. So again, they’re modeling the situation, not in response to this or that minor tweak of the situational features, but in terms of a quite deep understanding of the motivations and attitudes that are involved. And then if you go over to the psychological literature, you find the dispositions to give the push verdict in the footbridge case correlate more with antisocial behavior, with lack of altruism, with lack of perspective taking, with indifference to harm than with altruism or any kind of a generalized utilitarian perspective. So the psychologists seem to confirm the understanding that my students implicitly had of the situation.

Lucas Perry: What’s relevant to extract here is that there are deep levels of morally salient features, that human beings taken to account, and that are increasingly needed to be modeled and understood by machine systems for them to successfully operate in the world.

Peter Railton: Yeah. And to be trustworthy. I’m one of those people who thinks emotion is not a magical substance either, and that artificial systems could have and acquire emotions. And that part of the answer to the question of how do you build a core that is resistant against certain types of manipulation is to look at how it’s done in humans and indeed another animals and discovered that the affective system plays a pivotal role in just these kinds of situations. And so I suspect that’s another avenue of development. And children’s moral emotions undergo a similar kind of evolution through their upbringing, but through their direct experience because the emotions are there before they’re told what to feel. Indeed how would you tell the child what to feel?

Lucas Perry: Are there any other points that you’d like to wrap up here on then on the advantages of reflecting on AIs, which are sensitive to morally relevant features?

Peter Railton: I try to be as accurate as I can in understanding what we’re learning from the literature on pro sociality, for example, both with regard to individual human development and with regard to human communities, going back, looking at hunter gatherer communities. And even as there have been changes in morality, and I have emphasized that there’s been changes over time, the kinds of features that people take to be morally relevant, many of those have been relatively constant. And you can think of our changes in our moral views that have taken place over the years is getting better and better at winnowing out the ones that aren’t really morally relevant, like gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and so on, because they can easily become culturally relevant without being morally relevant. Fortunately, we have the critical capacity as agents to challenge that.

Lucas Perry: Yeah, that makes sense. The core importance that I’m extracting from everything is the baseline importance of moral learning in general, and also the understanding and capturing what human normative processes are like and what they entail and how they unfold. And that participating in a world of humans requires knowledge of both moral learning and the ability to learn morally.

Peter Railton: And this is not saying that people will always behave well, just in the same way that acquiring linguistic competence doesn’t mean people are always going to speak well or truthfully, or honestly, but rather that the competency will be acquired. One example that I like is sexual orientation. When I was growing up, it was considered fatal for someone’s social identity to be discovered to be gay. And there was a great deal of belief about the characteristics of gay individuals. In the 90s and so on, a large number of gay individuals were courageous enough to indicate their orientation. And what was discovered, we all discovered, was that the world was full of gay individuals whom we admired, whom we had standard relationships with, who were excellent colleagues, coworkers, friends, and that therefore we were operating on a bad dataset because we had not really had, we here I’m talking about heterosexuals, had insufficient experience with gay individuals. And so we could believe all kinds of things about them.

So I would emphasize that if it’s a learning system, it’s going to be very sensitive to the data. And if the data’s bad, the learning system is going to have a problem. So I don’t think it’s a magic solution, but I think the question to ask is, so how do we build on this? How do we provide more representative experiences and less biased samples so that the learning can take place and not pick up cultural biases?

Lucas Perry: Yeah, those are really big problems that exist today and a lot of the solution right now is human beings having to do a lot of hard work in datasets. We can’t keep that up forever. Something else is needed. I think this has been instructive about the importance of structure of moral learning and I want to pivot back into our discussion of meta ethics and your conversations with Derek Parfit and what your metaethical view is and how views on metaethical epistemology or metaphysics may bring to bear intuitions about what moral learning is like or what it might entail. It’s Derek Parfit, right? Who has essays on, Does Anything Really Matter?

Peter Railton: Yes.

Lucas Perry: So I guess that’s the question here then for this part of the conversation, is, does anything really matter? So you were in conversation with Derek Parfit and it seems like your views have converged and are different in ways from Peter Singer, though it seems like you guys are all realists. Could you unpack and explain a little bit about the history here and what went down between you Parfit and Singer?

Peter Railton: Yeah, sure. I have to warn those who are listening, buckle up, this is going to have to be a philosophy talk, but I’m sure that many people have these philosophical questions themselves. So let’s just begin with the title that Parfit chose for his master work, On What Matters, is the title. And you might say that mattering is the core notion of value, that if you had a universe full of rocks, it would not matter to the rocks, what happened. It would not matter to the rest of the universe, what happened. And so there wouldn’t be any positive or negative value in that universe. Introduce creatures for whom something matters, even if it’s just as simple as nutrition or avoiding pain, then you can begin to talk about states of affair as being better or worse than one another, about improving or degrading the situation or the characteristics of the world.

And so mattering is poor to the idea of value. And once we grasp that, we begin to realize that value is not some new entity in the world. It’s not something we add to the world. Once you have mattering, then things will have value, and they’ll have positive and they’ll have negative value. And of course, for different creatures, different things will matter. And learning what matters to a creature is understanding what would be good or harmful to that creature, and this of course includes humans. So I was very moved when I was on a committee, looking into questions of animal research, to know that the veterinarians learned a lot about what situations animals preferred and did what they could to try to give them situations in which they were happier, more lively, more disposed to cooperate and learn. And that means that they were trying to learn something about what matters to a rat.

And we now know a fair amount about what matters to a rat. Company matters, exercise, the capacity to engage in activities, build nests. And so when these things matter to rats and so we can give rats a good or a bad existence by thinking about, well, what does matter to rats? Now, what matters to rats is different from what matters to humans, but the basic idea is the same. So there’s value there and it’s thanks to the existence of creatures for whom something matters that value comes into existence in the world. That’s a perfectly naturalistic perspective. Treating value as something that is realized by natural states of affairs in the world. Now it turns out that even someone who’s an arch non-naturalist like Derek Parfit agrees that pain is bad, not because it has the non-natural property of being disvaluable, but because of what it’s like in its natural features, those features suffice to make the pain bad.

And if they didn’t suffice to make the pain bad, there would be no value feature we could sprinkle on it that would make it bad. But given that it has those features, there is also no value feature we can sprinkle on it that will make it good. And so Parfit and I can agree that non-naturalism is important in ethics, not because the world is populated with non-natural entities like values. That’s a widespread confusion. It’s reifying a notion of value as if it were some kind of a new domain of entities. And naturally once you’ve done that, it becomes very unclear how we learn about these, what relationship they have to the natural world. If instead, you think, no value is something that is brought into existence by certain relational features in the natural world, then you can say, “Ah, that’s common ground between Derek Parfit and myself.”

And if Derek’s explaining what’s bad about pain, he’ll give the same explanation that I would give about what’s bad about pain. So we agree on that. The badness in the case of pain, pain is really used for two different things. It’s used for certain types of physical sensation, and it’s used for suffering. That physical sensation isn’t always suffering. So for example, when you put hot sauce on your food, you fire up pain circuits, but you enjoy that. You may seek the burn of exercise. And so there are times when the physical sensation of pain is sought and liked, desirable. It’s part of good experiences. It shows that pain can matter in different ways. It’s the mattering where the value resides, not in the physical sensation just in itself. So the mattering is a relationship between a subjectivity and agent and the physical sensation, and it could be positive or negative in a given case, but the value resides in that relationship.

Lucas Perry: But they’re just two contents of consciousness, right? There is the content of consciousness of the sensation of pain on my arm if I scratch it, and I might derive another sensation from that sensual pain, that is pleasure. Wouldn’t the goodness here need to come from this higher level, more pristine pleasure that I gain from the pain, which is more of an emotion and that which is intuitive to the other sensation or the other content of consciousness?

Peter Railton: I think you’re right to bring in higher level mental states as well. Because part of the reason why pain in certain circumstances is desirable is because of the representation that you have of it. And this is true with many features of the world, is because you understand them in certain ways that they produce in you the positive or negative experience they do. And if you ask a psychologist, the positivity and the negativity in the mind does not reside in the impulses of the pain system or the pleasure or reward system. It resides in the effective system, which encodes value as positive or negative. And it encodes as well, the behaviors and the responses that are characteristic of positive and negative value, positive is approach negative is withdrawal. Fear involves a certain distinctive suite of responses. Anger involves another distinctive suite of responses, but the affective system is where the value is encoded, and that’s the common currency of value in the brain.

So that’s where we should be looking to discover. And it’s the affective system that, which is the root of our emotions, whether they’re aroused emotions like anger or fear or non aroused emotions like assurance and trust. That system is a system which encodes this relational feature of value. You’re quite right to think that we should move up a level, and in doing so, we encounter the affective system and its properties. And it’s a system that we share with all of our mammalian relatives and with other species as well. It’s evolutionarily a highly conserved system. And that’s because it is the core of valuation, and valuation is a core activity of living creatures because they’re going to base their actions on value assignments. You’re right to think that in the mind you will have tiers and that you need to find the right level in order to understand what value or disvalue looks like in the mind.

Lucas Perry: So there’s the view where some content of consciousness is clearly seen as bad given its nature. If some state of consciousness is like something from a consciousness realist perspective, and it is also natural because it’s part of the natural world, it’s a physical fact and there are facts about consciousness, then value comes in from what it’s like to be conscious. Whereas it seems like you’re bringing in the more computational, and physical side of things, like an evaluative affective system, which may not be separate from how things are experienced in consciousness, but I feel confused about these two different levels and where the ‘what matters’ comes from.

Peter Railton: Well, yes, you’re quite right. There are views about value in which it’s only conscious states that could have value or disvalue. I don’t particularly hold such a view. I think that we are intrinsically concerned with, and that there is intrinsic value in non-conscious states. And that’s why I wouldn’t sign up for the experience machine. The experience machine could provide an unending stream supposedly of positive conscious states, but why wouldn’t I sign on for it? Well, because the actual content of my values is not that I have certain conscious states, it’s that I have certain relations with people, with the external world, that I have a certain engagement with things that have a consciousness and that matter. And so I wouldn’t agree that the only place, the only locus of value or disvalue is conscious states.

Lucas Perry: So then from a cosmological and evolutionary perspective, there has been the development and arising of sentient creatures on this planet who have ever complexifying neural algorithms for modeling themselves and the world and making predictions and interacting with it. And amongst these evolved architectures include evaluative ones, which take the shape of valuing or disvaluing certain aspects of the world. And so that is enough for you for talking about intrinsic value. You feel like you don’t need to bring consciousness into it. You’re fine with just talking about the computation.

Peter Railton: Oh, I think consciousness plays a role because one of the good making features is a positive state of consciousness. It’s just, it’s not the only one. And so there are differences in the world that would not show up as differences in conscious states. And that’s what the experience machine is meant to show, but which would nonetheless constitute things that matter in the sense of matter that we were just describing, namely, that these are objects of concern, love, affection, interest on the positive side, objects of dislike, disvaluation, disapproval on the negative side. I don’t think there’s any reason to think that only conscious states can be locuses of value, but it may be that consciousness plays a role.

Lucas Perry: So what are these other good making features and why are they good making?

Peter Railton: Well, take, for example, a theory like a preference satisfaction theory. I would prefer other things equal that after I’m gone, my children have lives that they find meaningful. Now is that because I want to have the positive experience of thinking that their lives are meaningful? No, I want them to have those lives. And so it’s part of the content of my informed preferences, let’s say that it would survive information, is part of the content of my informed preferences that the world be such, that my children have a certain kind of life. And you say, “Well, doesn’t the meaningfulness of their life just consist in their conscious states?” And I’d say, “Well, no, not at all. I would think that a life in an experience machine would have the same meaning as a life with similar stream of conscious states that was lived in engagement with the world.”

And so when I want them to have meaningful lives, I want them to have lives in which they act in ways that matter to them. And that they do things that matter to themselves and to others and their intrinsic preferences, like my intrinsic preferences, aren’t just going to be for conscious states. And so it may be that you need something like preference or interest to get value off the ground mattering, but the content of what interests us, or the content of what our preferences are, won’t just be the conscious states. So you can’t satisfy my preferences just by giving me conscious states, for example.

Lucas Perry: So I don’t share that intuition with you. I still don’t understand why you feel that something like a preference is good making. I guess that just comes down to intuitions. I mean, when someone could ask me, why do I think consciousness is the only thing that is good making, but I don’t know, what is a preference? It’s like a concept about some computational architecture that prefers some state of the world over another. But when you pass away, for example, your preference goes away. So why does it need to be respected still? I mean, we’re getting into some waters here, but is the short version of this that when you just do these philosophical thought experiments, that your intuitions aren’t satisfied by consciousness being necessary and sufficient for value?

Peter Railton: Well, all of our knowledge, whether it’s knowledge of value or the external world, we can push it back to a point at which, again, we can’t give some further derivation of the assumption that we’re making. And so my thinking here is that it seems to me extremely plausible that the one intelligible notion I can get of something like value is that there can be a subjectivity such that states of affairs can go better or worse for that subjectivity. And then value would consist in that, which makes the states of affairs better or worse for that individual. And then I asked myself, well, does that satisfy our concept of value?

Well, value should have various different features and we can list those. It should be something that when we understand it’s intrinsically motivating, it should apply to the sorts of things that we ordinarily identify as being values. It should capture a certain role in the guidance of action. It should be something like a goal in action. We should see it as structuring a behavior of individuals. And when I look at all those conditions, I think, yeah, this satisfies those conditions. It’s not a proof. It’s just saying that if we lay down the conditions that we would give for something satisfying the concept of value, these states do indeed satisfy those conditions and that many other candidate states don’t. But I can’t tell you for example, that you shouldn’t have some other concept of calue instead of value and ask what would satisfy calue in the same way that I can’t in the case of knowledge of the external world, give you a derivation of the importance of knowledge, as opposed to shmowledge, you can operate with the concept of knowledge and see what it requires and see whether it would apply to what we are doing.

But that’s not a proof that there isn’t another scheme of shmowledge of which the same thing could be said. So that’s where we get down to these fundamental assumptions and can they be non arbitrary? Well, they can, for example, if, when applying them, you can be put in a situation where you give them up. A concept that we had, that we thought we were happy with, turns out to be confused. Or it turns out that the only things that would satisfy the concept are things which we ordinarily think the concept doesn’t apply to. So we think there’s a mismatch between the criteria and the paradigm cases. So it’s not arbitrary if you’re willing to use it critically, but it can’t be proven.

Lucas Perry: Okay. Bit of a side path from where you were to Parfit. I was curious about what you really meant by how you guys were agreeing about value being some natural thing, instead of having to sprinkle value.

Peter Railton: The way I would put it, the disagreement that I have with Parfit is a disagreement at the conceptual level. Initially, at any rate, it looked like we had a conflict of opinions because it looked as if he was committed to their being in the world, these non-natural features, and that they somehow explained the role that value has in our lives. And I couldn’t understand what that would mean, but he was perfectly content to say, “No, the good making features are these natural features. They explain the role that value has in our lives, but our concept of value is a non-natural concept.” And what does it mean to say that? Well, the same situation, the same configuration of matter could be described with physical concepts, chemical concepts, biological concepts, Oh, it’s an “organism.” It could be described in social concepts. It’s a person. Any given situation can be characterized in various different conceptual systems.

And it can be argued, plausibly, that you can’t reduce, for example, the conceptual system of biology to the conceptual system of particle physics. Because biology deals in functions, reproduction, metabolism, and so on, and there’s no one to one correspondence, no easy correspondence, between those functions and any particular physical realization. You could have living beings made out of carbon. You could have living beings made out of silicon. So the concept of living being, the concept of an organism is a concept of biology. It’s a way to organize the description of the world and explanation and biology is conceptually not reducible to physics. That doesn’t mean biologists can ignore physics because they think, most anyway do, that what satisfies their biological concept are physical systems. And so it’s an important question, what kinds of physical system would satisfy these concepts like self replication and so on?

And so they do microbiology and they study the physical systems that do satisfy these concepts. But the point is that the conceptual system has a degree of autonomy from the physical system. And that even discovering that self-replicating molecules have a certain chemical composition in this world is not discovering that the concept of a self replicating organism is simply a physical concept. Parfit has the same view about normative concepts. He and I agree about what pain is and what makes pain bad, but he says you could describe a situation either, as you were saying, in terms of some physical or biochemical processes, or you could describe it as bad, or as good or something that ought not to exist. And that’s another level of conceptual characterization. And his thought is that that level of conceptual characterization can’t be reduced to the concepts of natural order.

So there is an element in normative concepts that’s always beyond what is translatable without loss of meaning into the natural. Once one recognizes that, then you can be as naturalistic as you like about the nature of value and also believe that the concept of value is a non-natural concept. Just as if you can be as physicalist as you like about the fundamental furniture of the universe and still believe that the biological level of description is not reducible to the physical level of description. You could say the same debate went on when people were thinking about life. 19th century, we find people thinking, well, there’s got to be this special elan vital or spirit or something like that. You can’t just take a bunch of matter and put it together and have life. By and by, biochemistry develops and people, actually you can’t put a bunch of matter together and have life.

And the same thing is true with value. You don’t need some value-vital, some kind of further substance to add to the world. You can put together the natural stuff of the world and get value. Once you frame it that way, then Parfit and I actually agree. Because when he talks about the irrreducibility of the normative, he really means, should mean, and I think agrees that he means, a conceptual irreproducibility. And once we establish that, then I can say, “Yes, I agree with you, normative concepts aren’t definable entirely in terms of non-normative concepts, they involve some idea of ought or some idea of value that isn’t present to the non-normative.” But my interest as a philosopher and metaethicist is an interest in what kinds of natural conditions satisfy these concepts and how that makes it possible for us to have knowledge in a non-normative conceptual scheme, like ethics or theory of value. So that’s where I do my work. His work is done in carefully distinguishing the concepts.

Lucas Perry: So there is reality as it is, there is the base reality, base metaphysics, call it ultimate reality or whatever, and all human conceptualization supervenes upon that because it’s couched within that context and is identical to it. Yet that conceptualization you argue is lossy with respect to ultimate reality, because it doesn’t necessarily carve reality at the joints, but that conceptual structure is still supervenient upon it. And at the level of conceptualization, there are facts about the world that can be satisfied or not satisfied that will make some proposition true or false.

Peter Railton: Yeah.

Lucas Perry: So you’re arguing that value isn’t part of metaphysical bedrock, but metaphysical bedrock creates neural architectures that create concepts that contain within them necessary and sufficient conditions for being satisfied. And when agents are able to gain clarity with one another over concepts and satisfying necessary and sufficient conditions, then they can have concrete discussions about ethics.

Peter Railton: That would be one common basis. And so the image that Parfit gave in his first volume of On What Matters was that he thought, ultimately, you could see the utilitarian and the Kantian as climbing two different sides of the same mountain so that they would eventually meet at the summit. I suggested to him, well in metaethics, the same as the case, I’m a naturalist, I’m climbing one side of the mountain. You’re a non-naturalist, you’re climbing the other side of the mountain.

But as our views develop, and as we understand better the different elements of the views, then actually they’re going to come such that as we approach the summit, we aren’t really disagreeing with each other. And he accepted that picture. I would only add to what you were saying by way of summary. Our concepts typically don’t give us necessary and sufficient conditions, they are more open ended and open textured than that. And that’s part of why we can have unending debates about questions like value and so on.

But you mentioned truth and might say, truth is another very good example of a concept that’s not reducible to a concept of physics. Because true presupposes representations, and representations are characterizable not in terms of their physical constituents, but in terms of their role in thought. And so people who are skeptical about value because they say, “I don’t see where value is in the world,” they should be equally skeptical about truth. Because truth is not some new substance we add. If there’s a representation and it accurately reflects the world, then we have truth. So true, again, is a relational matter between a subject something, like a representation and this case, a state of the world, and it’s when that relationship obtains that you get truth.

Lucas Perry: Right, but that’s truth in the epistemological agent centered sense, but then there’s the more metaphysical view about truth, where there are mind independent facts. And they’re true, whether or not we know anything about them. Maybe the same distinction is important here to make. There are potentially moral truths within the conceptual framework that we’re participating in. And it feels weird to me to call that moral realism. But then there’s another claim where there’s mind independent truths about morality like that there’s an intrinsic quality to suffering that is what bad means. Does that make sense?

Peter Railton: I think you’ve put things in a very good way. One of the features of the setup that I was describing is that it’s very easy to slide from a position that for example, whenever a value judgment obtains, then some or other natural state obtains, it’s very easy to slide from that to thinking that the natural state actually is the normative fact. It doesn’t satisfy the concept. And so you could have the concept of the good, and it could be that there are eternal truths about good I suspect. That’s a reasonable candidate, just as there can be eternal truths in mathematics. The claim isn’t that the conceptual domain is somehow identical with the natural domain. It supervenes, but it’s not a relationship of identity. And the language in which those claims are stated, and the way in which we adjudicate them might be as in the case of mathematical claims, it could be quite a priori.

And that’s where Parfit’s view and mine differ and Singer’s likewise, because he thinks you can do this a priori in a way that I don’t think you can, but that’s a question in epistemology. It doesn’t require a different metaphysics in order to have that view. So you can be a physicalist and believe that there is mathematical truth. And that’s because, for example, you think that mathematical truths are true via a set of axioms, definitions, rules of inference. And so they are made true not by distributions of molecules, but by logical relationships that can be specified in terms of axioms and rules.

Lucas Perry: Okay. So I feel a little bit confused still about why your view is a kind of moral realism if it requires no strong metaphysical view. Whereas other moral realists that I’m familiar with hold a strong metaphysical view about suffering in consciousness and joy in consciousness as being the intrinsic valence carriers of value.

Peter Railton: Well, I’m not sure about the last part of your question. I’ll have to think about how to interpret that. But am I a realist about organisms, if I believe that the concept of an organism is distinct from any particular physical instantiation? Am I prevented from being a realist about organisms because I think the organismic level of description is irreducible to the physical level of description? You see, no, actually, because you think that the concept organism is satisfied by some physical system, you’re a realist about organisms, you think there are organisms. To me that’s a perfectly realistic position. And you realist or non-realistic would say, “Well, I guess there aren’t any organisms then, because they’re not part of the fundamental furniture of the universe.”

And I’d say, “Think of what an organism is. It’s not a piece of furniture, it’s a functionally organized arrangement. And because it’s functionally organized, it doesn’t correspond to any particular material, something or other. And for there to exist organisms is for there to exist the conditions such that the concept of organism is satisfied.” And that’s of course what most biologists believe. And so most biologists are realists about organisms.

Lucas Perry: If your intuitions changed about the reducibility of higher levels of knowledge to lower levels of knowledge, how would that affect your moral views? For example, there are views say like concepts in biology about reproduction and organisms and concepts like life are lossy when it comes to the actual furniture of reality. And that they don’t actually completely describe how things are and the concepts don’t carve reality at the joints. So they provide predictions about the world, but it all should be and is only best described by particle physics for example. One might say an organism is a concept, though it does not carve reality at the joints. And the best understanding of it is at the level of particle physics. So taking a realist position about conceptual fictions is dubious to define reality as whenever some concept I have is satisfied.

Peter Railton: What you’re pointing to is a very interesting problem. I would say that biological concepts do carve things at the joint, because the biological level of organization yields a whole systematic set of laws and principles that turn out to be true in our universe. It’s far from being an arbitrary stipulation or a fiction that something’s an organism and a tremendous amount follows from things being organisms and self-replicating and so on. And we have very elaborate theories about populations, mathematics and populations.

Lucas Perry: And are those laws though not reducible to other laws?

Peter Railton: That’s the idea that reducibility is the wrong concept to have here. Because the laws of population are laws that have to do with variables that aren’t fundamental variables of physics. They have to do with, for example, issues about reproducibility, availability of resources and so on, and what counts as a resource depends upon the nature of the organism. So there’s a level of organization, similarly in chemistry.

Lucas Perry: But what if those variables are just the shape of lower level things?

Peter Railton: Well, they won’t be, because if they were self-reproducing silicon-based organisms, they would obey similar population dynamics. Those principles govern functional organizations. So once you have self-replication, you have mutation, you have differential selection and so on, you’ll get certain principles, whatever physical realization there is.

Lucas Perry: But it really doesn’t make sense to me that these higher level laws would not be completely supervenient on fundamental forces of nature.

Peter Railton: Oh, they’re supervenient, definitely. But supervenience does not imply reducibility, that’s really critical in this domain. And again, this is the problem that I think has led to a lot of confusion in this domain. A feature that is supervenient upon fundamental physics is perhaps part of a system of laws that provides joints in nature. Because if you went to another world and you found a form of life that had these basic features of self-replication, mutation, selection, you would expect to find similar population dynamics to Earth. And that similarity is a biological similarity. It’s not a similarity in terms of the basic physics of the situation. The physics are the same, but the constitution of these organisms is very different. And so you couldn’t infer from understanding just the physics that there would be this biological regularity. That’s what it means to say that it’s supervenient, but not reducible.

Again, I think you can be a realist about organisms because organism really is a concept that carves nature at the joints. And so we would be able to export our theory of organisms to worlds in which carbon was not abundant and self-replication was built out of something else. And that’s a way in which nature is lawfully organized, supports counterfactuals, supports explanations. And so that’s a way of thinking about what it means to say it’s supervenient, but not reducible. And I think the same thing is true with moral distinctions. And that’s why they’re learnable. That’s why infants can learn moral distinctions, even without being given moral concepts.

Lucas Perry: Yeah. So that’s why I’m pushing on this point. Now that makes more sense to me in terms of moral statements, but when trying to make physical claims about how reality is, I feel more confused here and maybe it’s messing me up in other places. If all of the causality is governed by fundamental forces, then surely all concepts that try try to map out the world that is being governed by fundamental causality. All the laws that are derived at higher levels must be completely reducible to and supervenient upon or lossy to some extent with relation to the fundamental causal forces. I don’t think the claims is that for example principles of biology in life are causal in themselves. They’re more like laws that we use to make predictions, but predictions about systems that are running on the fundamental laws of nature. The complex aggregation of those laws must aggregate in some way to come close to those laws of biology. What is wrong with this picture?

Peter Railton: Well, there may be nothing wrong with it. I think the laws of biology are not just descriptive. I think they support explanations and that they are used, not just to redescribe reality, but they’re used to construct theories that show structure in reality that’s extremely important structure. And that would not be visible simply if you were allowed only predicates of fundamental physics. I guess I would say from the standpoint of explanation, biology affords many explanations. Suppose somebody wants to know why the material that happens to be in my body is where it is right now. Well, there is some very complicated story at the level of fundamental microphysics following all of these molecules, but it doesn’t look like anything at all. Whereas if you can give an explanation in terms of evolution and social dynamics as to how these molecules got here, you may have a much more compact comprehensible and understanding grasp of the world.

So I think biology affords us distinct modes of understanding and explanation, so does psychology, so does chemistry. One of the features of knowledge is that reality is organized at various levels in systems that are lawful systems and that support explanation and intervention and causation, but there’s no reason not to call this causation.

And so if somebody is describing the spread of the pandemic and they say, “Well, it’s partially caused by the transmutability of the virus, which is higher than that of the bird flu,” we’ll say, “Yes, that’s a causal factor in the spread of the virus and why these particular molecules are located in the world where they are.” And that’s a very powerful explanation. And if someone were just giving you a readout of the positions and momenta of all the different molecules of the world, you would not see this pattern and you’d have less understanding of the situation.

Lucas Perry: So tying this into your metaethics here, our ethical concepts are causally supervening on fundamental forces on physics. We’ve inherited them via evolution and they run on physics. But these concepts do not reduce to natural facts. There’s no goodness or badness built into the fundamental nature of the universe. These concepts are merely causal expressions of the universe playing out. And within the realm of this conceptualization, you can have truths about morality in the same way that you can have truths about biological organisms. And there’s a relationship here between what you might believe to be true about conceptualization and science and the epistemic status of concepts in general would also bear some information here on how one might think about the epistemic status of moral concepts.

Peter Railton: Yeah. Or thinking in terms of algorithms and systems. The systems, theoretic perspective gives you a lot of very well organized understanding as you grasp the algorithms that’s at work and so on, but algorithm is not a concept to fundamental physics.

Lucas Perry: Right. So it’s your view that moral facts, moral claims within conceptualization hold the same epistemic status as claims about algorithms and biological organisms and claims that we might make and in things like chemistry or biology, which are at a higher level of abstraction than particle physics.

Peter Railton: Yes. And that’s what would be called the naturalist. And it’s why someone like Peter Singer is a non-naturalist. He thinks the epistemology of moral judgments is a priori. And similarly with Derek Parfit, and they think it’s an intuitive epistemology, and they think that the two go together because they believe in something called rational intuition. And I’m inclined to think of intuition the way we were describing it earlier on. Namely, it’s a complex body of knowledge that isn’t organized into simple principles, but that replicates an important set of morally relevant relations. And that that’s really what intuition is. That when we have these intuitions, it’s that kind of knowledge, the way they’re grammatical intuitions or knowledge like that. So we disagree about the epistemology, but Parfit at least, and I’m not sure what Peter Singer would say. Our disagreement’s not metaphysical.

Lucas Perry: Right. I think the only place it seems like there would be space for a metaphysical disagreement would be in there being a kind of intrinsic good quality to pleasure and intrinsic bad quality to suffering that existed prior to conceptualization.

Peter Railton: I don’t think anything about the badness of pain depends on our concepts. I think that pain was bad in the first organisms that felt pain. And if humans had never evolved and the concept of pain had never come into existence and the concept of bad had never come to existence, it would still be bad for these organisms to suffer roasting to death in a world that desiccated or something like that? Our concepts allow us to talk about these features. The word concept comes from two words, con meaning with and kept, which is a term for grasp. And a concept is what we use to grasp features of the universe, not to create them.

Lucas Perry: So there already would have been some computational structure that would have evaluated something as bad?

Peter Railton: It would have made it the case that this was bad for that organism. Yes, that’s right.

Lucas Perry: And that doesn’t bring consciousness into it or anything, that could be strictly computational?

Peter Railton: Thus far yeah. And there’s a big debate about whether states have to be conscious in order for them to have disvalue. And one of the reasons for thinking about that is because we’re thinking about the animal kingdom and we aren’t sure how deep into the animal ancestry of humans consciousness goes. I myself don’t think that consciousness is essential, but I recognize that that’s one position among many.

Lucas Perry: Yeah. I happen to think that it is. But I would like now to wrap up and integrate this discussion on metaethical epistemology into the broader conversation. So we’ve talkedhere a lot about what your meta ethics is and the epistemology that is entailed by it, and also that of other peoples. That is related to moral learning of course, because a proper moral epistemology is the vehicle by which one would obtain normative or metaethical moral knowledge. So how do you view or integrate this thinking that we’ve gone through here to the question of AI alignment. On one hand, if we were Singer or Parfit, we might think if we just build something that’s sufficiently rational, whatever that means that axioms of morality would be intuitively accessible to such a machine system seems strange to say, but they would be intuitively accessible as well as axioms of mathematics. Whereas with your view I’m not quite sure what happens. So maybe you could explore this all a little for us.

Peter Railton: So if I could have my wish here, it would be that by getting an understanding of the metaethical landscape and which problems are metaphysical, which ones aren’t, which problems are epistemic and how they are tractable in various ways, the temptation towards skepticism in morality would at least be a bit weakened. People would see how it would be possible for us to have moral knowledge, of course imperfect and evolving. They would understand therefore how it could be possible for other systems to have moral knowledge. And we could talk concretely about the kinds of processes by which infants for example acquire moral knowledge, and think about how systems could go through similar kinds of processes and inquire a core moral competency as I think they can. Skepticism about morality I think has for a long time plagued the discipline, because it’s been hard for people to see how we could have something like moral knowledge.

And that’s been tied up with a picture of value and the nature of value as a unusual kind of something or other. As something that’s not part of the way in which the world is put together. And so how would we ever have any kind of knowledge of it? And since we can’t derive it from self-evident axioms, we have to be subjectivists. That I would hope to have had just a small effect in making that a somewhat less plausible position. Because I do think there’s an important constructive project here and is already underway in developmental psychology. And for example, people working around Josh Tenenbaum are working on this as a learning question. There’s a lot of promise to understanding intuition in terms of deep learning and understanding moral competency in Bayesian terms. So I think there’s a tremendous future for coming to have theories of moral learning. I’m glad psychologists have started using this phrase and that by giving a theory of it, that sorts out the metaethical landscape in the ways we’ve been describing, that seems more plausible.

Lucas Perry: Right. So in summary then the feeling that you have here is that people hold and walk around with common sense intuitions about normative and metaethical thinking and what those things are. And that there is a more solid foundation for whatever moral realism might be in understanding around these issues. And that there can be strong convergence and formalization around moral learning. And then the integration of moral learning to machine systems, which would make them sensitive to morally relevant features and thus make them socially, societally, civilizationally competent to be able to exist in an ecosystem of agents with more or less altruistic, malevolent, and benevolent values.

Peter Railton: And that we will need such systems badly as allies in the years to come. If I could just add one thought, someone’s going to say, “But don’t we have to have some priors about pain being bad, about positive some interactions being good.” Now you have to have some priors in order to engage in moral learning. And I would say we have to have priors to engage in any kind of learning. And what rationality and learning consist in is how do we use subsequent experience and evidence and argument to revise the priors and go on to create new priors and then apply evidence and argument and reasoning to those. That’s what rationality is, it’s not starting from scratch with self-evident principles that we just don’t happen to know. That’s what Bayesians say rationality is with response to science and the gathering of evidence. That’s a picture of rationality in which we can be rational beings and we can be more rational the more we are able to subject our priors to critical scrutiny and expose them to different kinds of more diverse representative forms of evidence and reasoning.

And I think the same thing is true with moral priors and rationality in the moral case doesn’t consist in seeing it as a self-evident set of axioms, because I don’t think one can. But starting with priors and then learning from experience, argument deliberation together, in that sense rationality in the two spheres is essentially very similar.

Lucas Perry: All right, Peter, thanks so much for your perspective here in sharing all of this. Is there anything else here, any last thoughts you’d like to say, anything you feel unresolved about?

Peter Railton: I would like to have more engagement between philosophers and the AI alignment community. I think it’s one of the most important problems we face as a culture and it’s an urgent problem. And it’s painful to me that philosophers are not as alive to it as they should be. I just want to invite anyone who’s out there working on the problem. Please, let’s try to make contact, not necessarily with me, but with other philosophers. And let’s try to build a constructive community here. Because for too long philosophy has been in the situation of folding its arms and sort of poo-pooing artificial intelligence or artificial ethics. And if that view has merit and it does have merit in many areas, AI gets over-hyped a lot, AI people will tell you that.

But there’s this other side, which is what has been accomplished, what has been constructed, what’s been shown to be possible. And how can we build on that? And there I think there’s a lot of opportunity for constructive interaction. So that would be my parting thought that this is a time when urgent work in this area is needed. Let’s bring all the resources we can to bear on it.

Lucas Perry: All right, beautiful thoughts to end on then. If people want to follow you on social media or get in contact with you, how’s the best way to do that?

Peter Railton: Well, I’m not on social media. The best way would be to reach me via email, which is prailton@umich.edu. I get a lot of email. I can’t promise I’ll respond quickly to emails, I wish I could. But I don’t want philosophy to lose the chance to be part of this important process.

Lucas Perry: All right. And if people want to check out your papers or work?

Peter Railton: I’m supposed to be building a website. I may succeed in doing so. Many of the papers are available. People have put them up in various ways. So if you go to Google Scholar, you can find many of my papers. And I also want to put in a plug for those philosophers who have heroically been working on these questions. They’ve done a great deal of work and we should be grateful for what they’ve accomplished. But yes, if people want to find my work, if they can’t get access to it, let me know and I’ll make the papers available.

Lucas Perry: All right, thanks again, Peter. It’s been really informative and I appreciate you coming on.

Peter Railton: Great. I appreciate your questions and your patience. This has been very helpful conversation for me as well.

 

 

End of recorded material

Evan Hubinger on Inner Alignment, Outer Alignment, and Proposals for Building Safe Advanced AI

 Topics discussed in this episode include:

  • Inner and outer alignment
  • How and why inner alignment can fail
  • Training competitiveness and performance competitiveness
  • Evaluating imitative amplification, AI safety via debate, and microscope AI

 

Timestamps: 

0:00 Intro 

2:07 How Evan got into AI alignment research

4:42 What is AI alignment?

7:30 How Evan approaches AI alignment

13:05 What are inner alignment and outer alignment?

24:23 Gradient descent

36:30 Testing for inner alignment

38:38 Wrapping up on outer alignment

44:24 Why is inner alignment a priority?

45:30 How inner alignment fails

01:11:12 Training competitiveness and performance competitiveness

01:16:17 Evaluating proposals for building safe and advanced AI via inner and outer alignment, as well as training and performance competitiveness

01:17:30 Imitative amplification

01:23:00 AI safety via debate

01:26:32 Microscope AI

01:30:19 AGI timelines and humanity’s prospects for succeeding in AI alignment

01:34:45 Where to follow Evan and find more of his work

 

Works referenced: 

Risks from Learned Optimization in Advanced Machine Learning Systems

An overview of 11 proposals for building safe advanced AI 

Evan’s work at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute

Twitter

GitHub

LinkedIn

Facebook

 

We hope that you will continue to join in the conversations by following us or subscribing to our podcasts on Youtube, Spotify, SoundCloud, iTunes, Google Play, StitcheriHeartRadio, or your preferred podcast site/application. You can find all the AI Alignment Podcasts here.

You can listen to the podcast above or read the transcript below. 

Lucas Perry: Welcome to the AI Alignment Podcast. I’m Lucas Perry. Today we have a conversation with Evan Hubinger about ideas in two works of his: An overview of 11 proposals for building safe advanced AI and Risks from Learned Optimization in Advanced Machine Learning Systems. Some of the ideas covered in this podcast include inner alignment, outer alignment, training competitiveness, performance competitiveness, and how we can evaluate some highlighted proposals for safe advanced AI with these criteria. We especially focus in on the problem of inner alignment and go into quite a bit of detail on that. This podcast is a bit jargony, but if you don’t have a background in computer science, don’t worry. I don’t have a background in it either and Evan did an excellent job making this episode accessible. Whether you’re an AI alignment researcher or not, I think you’ll find this episode quite informative and digestible. I learned a lot about a whole other dimension of alignment that I previously wasn’t aware of, and feel this helped to give me a deeper and more holistic understanding of the problem. 

Evan Hubinger was an AI safety research intern at OpenAI before joining MIRI. His current work is aimed at solving inner alignment for iterated amplification. Evan was an author on “Risks from Learned Optimization in Advanced Machine Learning Systems,” was previously a MIRI intern, designed the functional programming language Coconut, and has done software engineering work at Google, Yelp, and Ripple. Evan studied math and computer science at Harvey Mudd College.

And with that, let’s get into our conversation with Evan Hubinger.

In general, I’m curious to know a little bit about your intellectual journey, and the evolution of your passions, and how that’s brought you to AI alignment. So what got you interested in computer science, and tell me a little bit about your journey to MIRI.

Evan Hubinger: I started computer science when I was pretty young. I started programming in middle school, playing around with Python, programming a bunch of stuff in my spare time. The first really big thing that I did, I wrote a functional programming language on top of Python. It was called Rabbit. It was really bad. It was interpreted in Python. And then I decided I would improve on that. I wrote another functional programming language on top of Python, called Coconut. Got a bunch of traction.

This was while I was in high school, starting to get into college. And this was also around the time I was reading a bunch of the sequences on LessWrong. I got sort of into that, and the rationality space, and I was following it a bunch. I also did a bunch of internships at various tech companies, doing software engineering and, especially, programming languages stuff.

Around halfway through my undergrad, I started running the Effective Altruism Club at Harvey Mudd College. And as part of running the Effective Altruism Club, I was trying to learn about all of these different cause areas, and how to use my career to do the most good. And I went to EA Global, and I met some MIRI people there. They invited me to do a programming internship at MIRI, where I did some engineering stuff, functional programming, dependent type theory stuff.

And then, while I was there, I went to the MIRI Summer Fellows program, which is this place where a bunch of people can come together and try to work on doing research, and stuff, for a period of time over the summer. I think it’s not happening now because of the pandemic, but it hopefully will happen again soon.

While I was there, I encountered some various different information, and people talking about AI safety stuff. And, in particular, I was really interested in this, at that time people were calling it, “optimization daemons.” This idea that there could be problems when you train a model for some objective function, but you don’t actually get a model that’s really trying to do what you trained it for. And so with some other people who were at the MIRI Summer Fellows program, we tried to dig into this problem, and we wrote this paper, Risks from Learned Optimization in Advanced Machine Learning Systems.

Some of the stuff I’ll probably be talking about in this podcast came from that paper. And then as a result of that paper, I also got a chance to work with and talk with Paul Christiano, at OpenAI. And he invited me to apply for an internship at OpenAI, so after I finished my undergrad, I went to OpenAI, and I did some theoretical research with Paul, there.

And then, when that was finished, I went to MIRI, where I currently am. And I’m doing sort of similar theoretical research to the research I was doing at OpenAI, but now I’m doing it at MIRI.

Lucas Perry: So that gives us a better sense of how you ended up in AI alignment. Now, you’ve been studying it for quite a while from a technical perspective. Could you explain what your take is on AI alignment, and just explain what you see as AI alignment?

Evan Hubinger: Sure. So I guess, broadly, I like to take a general approach to AI alignment. I sort of see the problem that we’re trying to solve as the problem of AI existential risk. It’s the problem of: it could be the case that, in the future, we have very advanced AIs that are not aligned with humanity, and do really bad things. I see AI alignment as the problem of trying to prevent that.

But there are, obviously, a lot of sub-components to that problem. And so, I like to make some particular divisions. Specifically, one of the divisions that I’m very fond of, is to split it between these concepts called inner alignment and outer alignment, which I’ll talk more about later. I also think that there’s a lot of different ways to think about what the problems are that these sorts of approaches are trying to solve. Inner alignment, outer alignment, what is the thing that we’re trying to approach, in terms of building an aligned AI?

And I also tend to fall into the Paul Christiano camp of thinking mostly about intent alignment, where the goal of trying to build AI systems, right now, as a thing that we should be doing to prevent AIs from being catastrophic, is focusing on how do we produce AI systems which are trying to do what we want. And I think that inner and outer alignment are the two big components of producing intent aligned AI systems. The goal is to, hopefully, reduce AI existential risk and make the future a better place.

Lucas Perry: Do the social, and governance, and ethical and moral philosophy considerations come much into this picture, for you, when you’re thinking about it?

Evan Hubinger: That’s a good question. There’s certainly a lot of philosophical components to trying to understand various different aspects of AI. What is intelligence? How do objective functions work? What is it that we actually want our AIs to do at the end of the day?

In my opinion, I think that a lot of those problems are not at the top of my list in terms of what I expect to be quite dangerous if we don’t solve them. I think a large part of the reason for that is because I’m optimistic about some of the AI safety proposals, such as amplification and debate, which aim to produce a sort of agent, in the case of amplification, which is trying to do what a huge tree of humans would do. And then the problem reduces to, rather than having to figure out, in the abstract, what is the objective that we should be trying to train an AI for, that, philosophically, we think would be utility maximizing, or good, or whatever, we can just be like, well, we trust that a huge tree of humans would do the right thing, and then sort of defer the problem to this huge tree of humans to figure out what, philosophically, is the right thing to do.

And there are similar arguments you can make with other situations, like debate, where we don’t necessarily have to solve all of these hard philosophical problems, if we can make use of some of these alignment techniques that can solve some of these problems for us.

Lucas Perry: So let’s get into, here, your specific approach to AI alignment. How is it that you approach AI alignment, and how does it differ from what MIRI does?

Evan Hubinger: So I think it’s important to note, I certainly am not here speaking on behalf of MIRI, I’m just presenting my view, and my view is pretty distinct from the view of a lot of other people at MIRI. So I mentioned at the beginning that I used to work at OpenAI, and I did some work with Paul Christiano. And I think that my perspective is pretty influenced by that, as well, and so I come more from the perspective of what Paul calls prosaic AI alignment. Which is the idea of, we don’t know exactly what is going to happen, as we develop AI into the future, but a good operating assumption is that we should start by trying to solve AI for AI alignment, if there aren’t major surprises on the road to AGI. What if we really just scale things up, we sort of go via the standard path, and we get really intelligent systems? Would we be able to align AI in that situation?

And that’s the question that I focus on the most, not because I don’t expect there to be surprises, but because I think that it’s a good research strategy. We don’t know what those surprises will be. Probably, our best guess is it’s going to look something like what we have now. So if we start by focusing on that, then hopefully we’ll be able to generate approaches which can successfully scale into the future. And so, because I have this sort of general research approach, I tend to focus more on: What are current machine learning systems doing? How do we think about them? And how would we make them inner aligned and outer aligned, if they were sort of scaled up into the future?

This is in contrast with the way I think a lot of other people at MIRI view this. I think a lot of people at MIRI think that if you go this route of prosaic AI, current machine learning scaled up, it’s very unlikely to be aligned. And so, instead, you have to search for some other understanding, some other way to potentially do artificial intelligence that isn’t just this standard, prosaic path that would be more easy to align, that would be safer. I think that’s a reasonable research strategy as well, but it’s not the strategy that I generally pursue in my research.

Lucas Perry: Could you paint a little bit more detailed of a picture of, say, the world in which the prosaic AI alignment strategy sees as potentially manifesting where current machine learning algorithms, and the current paradigm of thinking in machine learning, is merely scaled up, and via that scaling up, we reach AGI, or superintelligence?

Evan Hubinger: I mean, there’s a lot of different ways to think about what does it mean for current AI, current machine learning, to be scaled up, because there’s a lot of different forms of current machine learning. You could imagine even bigger GPT-3, which is able to do highly intelligent reasoning. You could imagine we just do significantly more reinforcement learning in complex environments, and we end up with highly intelligent agents.

I think there’s a lot of different paths that you can go down that still fall into the category of prosaic AI. And a lot of the things that I do, as part of my research, is trying to understand those different paths, and compare them, and try to get to an understanding of… Even within the realm of prosaic AI, there’s so much happening right now in AI, and there’s so many different ways we could use current AI techniques to put them together in different ways to produce something potentially superintelligent, or highly capable and advanced. Which of those are most likely to be aligned? Which of those are the best paths to go down?

One of the pieces of research that I published, recently, was an overview and comparison of a bunch of the different possible paths to prosaic AGI. Different possible ways in which you could build advanced AI systems using current machine learning tools, and trying to understand which of those would be more or less aligned, and which would be more or less competitive.

Lucas Perry: So, you’re referring now, here, to this article, which is partly a motivation for this conversation, which is An Overview of 11 Proposals for Building Safe Advanced AI.

Evan Hubinger: That’s right.

Lucas Perry: All right. So, I think it’d be valuable if you could also help to paint a bit of a picture here of exactly the MIRI style approach to AI alignment. You said that they think that, if we work on AI alignment via this prosaic paradigm, that machine learning scaled up to superintelligence or beyond is unlikely to be aligned, so we probably need something else. Could you unpack this a bit more?

Evan Hubinger: Sure. I think that the biggest concern that a lot of people at MIRI have with trying to scale up prosaic AI is also the same concern that I have. There’s this really difficult, pernicious problem, which I call inner alignment, which is presented in the Risks from Learned Optimization paper that I was talking about previously, which I think many people at MIRI, as well as me, think that this inner alignment problem is the key stumbling block to really making prosaic AI work. I agree. I think that this is the biggest problem. But I’m more optimistic, in terms of, I think that there are possible approaches that we can take within the prosaic paradigm that could solve this inner alignment problem. And I think that is the biggest point of difference, is how difficult will inner alignment be?

Lucas Perry: So what that looks like is a lot more foundational work, and correct me if I’m wrong here, into mathematics, and principles in computer science, like optimization and what it means for something to be an optimizer, and what kind of properties that has. Is that right?

Evan Hubinger: Yeah. So in terms of some of the stuff that other people at MIRI work on, I think a good starting point would be the embedded agency sequence on the alignment forum, which gives a good overview of a lot of the things that the different Agent Foundations people, like Scott Garrabrant, Sam Eisenstat, Abram Demski, are working on.

Lucas Perry: All right. Now, you’ve brought up inner alignment as a crucial difference, here, in opinion. So could you unpack exactly what inner alignment is, and how it differs from outer alignment?

Evan Hubinger: This is a favorite topic of mine. A good starting point is trying to rewind, for a second, and really understand what it is that machine learning does. Fundamentally, when we do machine learning, there are a couple of components. We start with a parameter space of possible models, where a model, in this case, is some parameterization of a neural network, or some other type of parameterized function. And we have this large space of possible models, this large space of possible parameters, that we can put into our neural network. And then we have some loss function where, for a given parameterization for a particular model, we can check what is its behavior like on some environment. In supervised learning, we can ask how good are its predictions that it outputs. In an RL environment, we can ask how much reward does it get, when we sample some trajectory.

And then we have this gradient descent process, which samples some individual instances of behavior of the model, and then it tries to modify the model to do better in those instances. We search around this parameter space, trying to find models which have the best behavior on the training environment. This has a lot of great properties. This has managed to propel machine learning into being able to solve all of these very difficult problems that we don’t know how to write algorithms for ourselves.

But I think, because of this, there’s a tendency to rely on something which I call the does-the-right-thing abstraction. Which is that, well, because the model’s parameters were selected to produce the best behavior, according to the loss function, on the training distribution, we tend to think of the model as really trying to minimize that loss, really trying to get rewarded.

But in fact, in general, that’s not the case. The only thing that you know is that, on the cases where I sample data on the training distribution, my models seem to be doing pretty well. But you don’t know what the model is actually trying to do. You don’t know that it’s truly trying to optimize the loss, or some other thing. You just know that, well, it looked like it was doing a good job on the training distribution.

What that means is that this abstraction is quite leaky. There’s many different situations in which this can go wrong. And this general problem is referred to as robustness, or distributional shift. This problem of, well, what happens when you have a model, which you wanted it to be trying to minimize some loss, but you move it to some other distribution, you take it off the training data, what does it do, then?

And I think this is the starting point for understanding what is inner alignment, is from this perspective of robustness, and distributional shift. Inner alignment, specifically, is a particular type of robustness problem. And it’s the particular type of robustness problem that occurs when you have a model which is, itself, an optimizer.

When you do machine learning, you’re searching over this huge space of different possible models, different possible parameterizations of a neural network, or some other function. And one type of function which could do well on many different environments, is a function which is running a search process, which is doing some sort of optimization. You could imagine I’m training a model to solve some maze environment. You could imagine a model which just learns some heuristics for when I should go left and right. Or you could imagine a model which looks at the whole maze, and does some planning algorithm, some search algorithm, which searches through the possible paths and finds the best one.

And this might do very well on the mazes. If you’re just running a training process, you might expect that you’ll get a model of this second form, that is running this search process, that is running some optimization process.

In the Risks from Learned Optimization paper, we call models which are, themselves, running search processes mesa-optimizers, where “mesa” is just Greek, and it’s the opposite of meta. There’s a standard terminology in machine learning, this meta-optimization, where you can have an optimizer which is optimizing another optimizer. In mesa-optimization, it’s the opposite. It’s when you’re doing gradient descent, you have an optimizer, and you’re searching over models, and it just so happens that the model that you’re searching over happens to also be an optimizer. It’s one level below, rather than one level above. And so, because it’s one level below, we call it a mesa-optimizer.

And inner alignment is the question of how do we align the objectives of mesa-optimizers. If you have a situation where you train a model, and that model is, itself, running an optimization process, and that optimization process is going to have some objective. It’s going to have some thing that it’s searching for. In a maze, maybe it’s searching for: how do I get to the end of the maze? And the question is, how do you ensure that that objective is doing what you want?

If we go back to the does-the-right-thing abstraction, that I mentioned previously, it’s tempting to say, well, we trained this model to get to the end of the maze, so it should be trying to get to the end of the maze. But in fact, that’s not, in general, the case. It could be doing anything that would be correlated with good performance, anything that would likely result in: in general, it gets to the end of the maze on the training distribution, but it could be an objective that will do anything else, sort of off-distribution.

That fundamental robustness problem of, when you train a model, and that model has an objective, how do you ensure that that objective is the one that you trained it for? That’s the inner alignment problem.

Lucas Perry: And how does that stand, in relation with the outer alignment problem?

Evan Hubinger: So the outer alignment problem is, how do you actually produce objectives which are good to optimize for?

So the inner alignment problem is about aligning the model with the loss function, the thing you’re training for, the reward function. Outer alignment is aligning that reward function, that loss function, with the programmer’s intentions. It’s about ensuring that, when you write down a loss, if your model were to actually optimize for that loss, it would actually do something good.

Outer alignment is the much more standard problem of AI alignment. If you’ve been introduced to AI alignment before, you’ll usually start by hearing about the outer alignment concerns. Things like paperclip maximizers, where there’s this problem of, you try to train it to do some objective, which is maximize paperclips, but in fact, maximizing paperclips results in it doing all of this other stuff that you don’t want it to do.

And so outer alignment is this value alignment problem of, how do you find objectives which are actually good to optimize? But then, even if you have found an objective which is actually good to optimize, if you’re using the standard paradigm of machine learning, you also have this inner alignment problem, which is, okay, now, how do I actually train a model which is, in fact, going to do that thing which I think is good?

Lucas Perry: That doesn’t bear relation with Stuart’s standard model, does it?

Evan Hubinger: It, sort of, is related to Stuart Russell’s standard model of AI. I’m not referring to precisely the same thing, but it’s very similar. I think a lot of the problems that Stuart Russell has with the standard paradigm of AI are based on this: start with an objective, and then train a model to optimize that objective. When I’ve talked to Stuart about this, in the past, he has said, “Why are we even doing this thing of training models, hoping that the models will do the right thing? We should be just doing something else, entirely.” But we’re both pointing at different features of the way in which current machine learning is done, and trying to understand what are the problems inherent in this sort of machine learning process? I’m not making the case that I think that this is an unsolvable problem. I mean, it’s the problem I work on. And I do think that there are promising solutions to it, but I do think it’s a very hard problem.

Lucas Perry: All right. I think you did a really excellent job, there, painting the picture of inner alignment and outer alignment. I think that in this podcast, historically, we have focused a lot on the outer alignment problem, without making that super explicit. Now, for my own understanding, and, as a warning to listeners, my basic machine learning knowledge is something like an Orc structure, hobbled together with sheet metal, and string, and glue. And gum, and rusty nails, and stuff. So, I’m going to try my best, here, to see if I understand everything here about inner and outer alignment, and the basic machine learning model. And you can correct me if I get any of this wrong.

So, in terms of inner alignment, there is this neural network space, which can be parameterized. And when you do the parameterization of that model, the model is the nodes, and how they’re connected, right?

Evan Hubinger: Yeah. So the model, in this case, is just a particular parameterization of your neural network, or whatever function, approximated, that you’re training. And it’s whatever the parameterization is, at the moment we’re talking about. So when you deploy the model, you’re deploying the parameterization you found by doing huge amounts of training, via gradient descent, or whatever, searching over all possible parameterizations, to find one that had good performance on the training environment.

Lucas Perry: So, that model being parameterized, that’s receiving inputs from the environment, and then it is trying to minimize the loss function, or maximize reward.

Evan Hubinger: Well, so that’s the tricky part. Right? It’s not trying to minimize the loss. It’s not trying to maximize the reward. That’s this thing which I call the does-the-right-thing abstraction. This leaky abstraction that people often rely on, when they think about machine learning, that isn’t actually correct.

Lucas Perry: Yeah, so it’s supposed to be doing those things, but it might not.

Evan Hubinger: Well, what does “supposed to” mean? It’s just a process. It’s just a system that we run, and we hope that it results in some particular outcome. What it is doing, mechanically, is we are using a gradient descent process to search over the different possible parameterizations, to find parameterizations which result in good behavior on the training environment.

Lucas Perry: That’s good behavior, as measured by the loss function, or the reward function. Right?

Evan Hubinger: That’s right. You’re using gradient descent to search over the parameterizations, to find a parameterization which results in a high reward on the training environment.

Lucas Perry: Right, but, achieving the high reward, what you’re saying, is not identical with actually trying to minimize the loss.

Evan Hubinger: Right. There’s a sense in which you can think of gradient descent as trying to minimize the loss, because it’s selecting for parameterizations which have the lowest possible loss that it can find, but we don’t know what the model is doing. All we know is that the model’s parameters were selected, by gradient descent, to have good training performance; to do well, according to the loss, on the training distribution. But what they do off-distribution, we don’t know.

Lucas Perry: We’re going to talk about this later, but there could be a proxy. There could be something else in the maze that it’s actually optimizing for, that correlates with minimizing the loss function, but it’s not actually trying to get to the end of the maze.

Evan Hubinger: That’s exactly right.

Lucas Perry: And then, in terms of gradient descent, is the TL;DR on that: the parameterized neural network space, you’re creating all of these perturbations to it, and the perturbations are sort of nudging it around in this n-dimensional space, how-many-ever parameters there are, or whatever. And, then, you’ll check to see how it minimizes the loss, after those perturbations have been done to the model. And, then, that will tell you whether or not you’re moving in a direction which is the local minima, or not, in that space. Is that right?

Evan Hubinger: Yeah. I think that that’s a good, intuitive understanding. What’s happening is, you’re looking at infinitesimal shifts, because you’re taking a gradient, and you’re looking at how those infinitesimal shifts would perform on some batch of training data. And then you repeat that, many times, to go in the direction of the infinitesimal shift which would cause the best increase in performance. But it’s, basically, the same thing. I think the right way to think about gradient descent is this local search process. It’s moving around the parameter space, trying to find parameterizations which have good training performance.

Lucas Perry: Is there anything interesting that you have to say about that process of gradient descent, and the tension between finding local minima and global minima?

Evan Hubinger: Yeah. It’s certainly an important aspect of what the gradient descent process does, that it doesn’t find global minima. It’s not the case that it works by looking at every possible parameterization, and picking the actual best one. It’s this local search process that starts from some initialization, and then looks around the space, trying to move in the direction of increasing improvement. Because of this, there are, potentially, multiple possible equilibria, parameterizations that you could find from different initializations, that could have different performance.

All the possible parameterizations of a neural network with billions of parameters, like GPT-2, or now, GPT-3, which has greater than a hundred billion, is absolutely massive. It’s over a combinatorial explosion of a huge degree, where you have all of these different possible parameterizations, running internally, correspond to totally different algorithms controlling these weights that determine exactly what algorithm the model ends up implementing.

And so, in this massive space of algorithms, you might imagine that some of them will look more like search processes, some of them will look more like optimizers that have objectives, some of them will look less like optimizers, some of them might just be grab bags of heuristics, or other different possible algorithms.

It’d depend on exactly what your setup is. If you’re training a very simple network that’s just a couple of feed-forward layers, it’s probably not possible for you to find really complex models influencing complex search processes. But if you’re training huge models, with many layers, with all of these different possible parameterizations, then it becomes more and more possible for you to find these complex algorithms that are running complex search processes.

Lucas Perry: I guess the only thing that’s coming to mind, here, that is, maybe, somewhat similar is how 4.5 billion years of evolution has searched over the space of possible minds. Here we stand as these ape creature things. Are there, for example, interesting intuitive relationships between evolution and gradient descent? They’re both processes searching over a space of mind, it seems.

Evan Hubinger: That’s absolutely right. I think that there are some really interesting parallels there. In particular, if you think about humans as models that were produced by evolution as a search process, it’s interesting to note that the thing which we optimize for is not the thing which evolution optimizes for. Evolution wants us to maximize the total spread of our DNA, but that’s not what humans do. We want all of these other things, like decreasing pain and happiness and food and mating, and all of these various proxies that we use. An interesting thing to note is that many of these proxies are actually a lot easier to optimize for, and a lot simpler than if we were actually truly maximizing spread of DNA. An example that I like to use is imagine some alternate world where evolution actually produced humans that really cared about their DNA, and you have a baby in this world, and this baby stubs their toe, and they’re like, “What do I do? Do I have to cry for help? Is this a bad thing that I’ve stubbed my toe?”

They have to do this really complex optimization process that’s like, “Okay, how is my toe being stubbed going to impact the probability of me being able to have offspring later on in life? What can I do to best mitigate that potential downside now?” This is a really difficult optimization process, and so I think it sort of makes sense that evolution instead opted for just pain, bad. If there’s pain, you should try to avoid it. But as a result of evolution opting for that much simpler proxy, there’s a misalignment there, because now we care about this pain rather than the thing that evolution wanted, which was the spread of DNA.

Lucas Perry: I think the way Stuart Russell puts this is the actual problem of rationality is how is my brain supposed to compute and send signals to my 100 odd muscles to maximize my reward function over the universe history until heat death or something. We do nothing like that. It would be computationally intractable. It would be insane. So, we have all of these proxy things that evolution has found that we care a lot about. Their function is instrumental in terms of optimizing for the thing that evolution is optimizing for, which is reproductive fitness. Then this is all probably motivated by thermodynamics, I believe. When we think about things like love or like beauty or joy, or like aesthetic pleasure in music or parts of philosophy or things, these things almost seem intuitively valuable from a first person perspective of the human experience. But via evolution, they’re these proxy objectives that we find valuable because they’re instrumentally useful in this evolutionary process on top of this thermodynamic process, and that makes me feel a little funny.

Evan Hubinger: Yeah, I think that’s right. But I also think it’s worth noting that you want to be careful not to take the evolution analogy too far, because it is just an analogy. When we actually look at the process of machine learning and how great it is that it works, it’s not the same. It’s running a fundamentally different optimization procedure over a fundamentally different space, and so there are some interesting analogies that we can make to evolution, but at the end of the day, what we really want to analyze is how does this work in the context of machine learning? I think the Risks from Learned Optimization paper tries to do that second thing, of let’s really try to look carefully at the process of machine learning and understand what this looks like in that context. I think it’s useful to sort of have in the back of your mind this analogy to evolution, but I would also be careful not to take it too far and imagine that everything is going to generalize to the case of machine learning, because it is a different process.

Lucas Perry: So then pivoting here, wrapping up on our understanding of inner alignment and outer alignment, there’s this model, which is being parameterized by gradient descent, and it has some relationship with the loss function or the objective function. It might not actually be trying to minimize the actual loss or to actually maximize the reward. Could you add a little bit more clarification here about why that is? I think you mentioned this already, but it seems like when gradient descent is evolving this parameterized model space, isn’t that process connected to minimizing the loss in some objective way? The loss is being minimized, but it’s not clear that it’s actually trying to minimize the loss. There’s some kind of proxy thing that it’s doing that we don’t really care about.

Evan Hubinger: That’s right. Fundamentally, what’s happening is that you’re selecting for a model which has empirically on the training distribution, the low loss. But what that actually means in terms of the internals of the model, what it’s sort of trying to optimize for, and what its out of distribution behavior would be is unclear. A good example of this is this maze example. I was talking previously about the instance of maybe you train a model on a training distribution of relatively small mazes, and to mark the end, you put a little green arrow. Right? Then I want to ask the question, what happens when we move to a deployment environment where the green arrow is no longer at the end of the maze, and we have much larger mazes? Then what happens to the model in this new off distribution setting?

I think there’s three distinct things that can happen. It could simply fail to generalize at all. It just didn’t learn a general enough optimization procedure that it was able to solve these bigger, larger mazes, or it could successfully generalize and knows how to navigate. It learned a general purpose optimization procedure, which is able to solve mazes, and it uses it to get to the end of the maze. But there’s a third possibility, which is that it learned a general purpose optimization procedure, which is capable of solving mazes, but it learned the wrong objective. It learned to use that optimization procedure to get the green arrow rather than to get to the end of the maze. What I call this situation is capability generalization without objective generalization. It’s objective, but the thing it was using those capabilities for didn’t generalize successfully off distribution.

What’s so dangerous about this particular robustness failure is that it means off distribution you have models which are highly capable. They have these really powerful optimization procedures directed at incorrect tasks. You have this strong maze solving capability, but this strong maze solving capability is being directed at a proxy, getting to the green arrow rather than the actual thing which we wanted, which was get to the end of the maze. The reason this is happening is that on the training environment, both of those different possible models look the same in the training distribution. But when you move them off distribution, you can see that they’re trying to do very different things, one of which we want, and one of which we don’t want. But they’re both still highly capable.

You end up with a situation where you have intelligent models directed at the wrong objective, which is precisely the sort of misalignment of AIs that we’re trying to avoid, but it happened not because the objective was wrong. In this example, we actually want them to get to the end of the maze. It happened because our training process failed. It happened because our training process wasn’t able to distinguish between models trying to get to the end, and models trying to get to the green arrow. What’s particularly concerning in this situation is when the objective generalization lags behind the capability generalization, when the capabilities generalize better than the objective does, so that it’s able to do highly capable actions, highly intelligent actions, but it does them for the wrong reason.

I was talking previously about mesa optimizers where inner alignment is about this problem of models which have objectives which are incorrect. That’s the sort of situation where I could expect this problem to occur, because if you are training a model and that model has a search process and an objective, potentially the search process could generalize without the objective also successfully generalizing. That leads to this situation where your capabilities are generalizing better than your objective, which gives you this problem scenario where the model is highly intelligent, but directed at the wrong thing.

Lucas Perry: Just like in all of the outer alignment problems, the thing doesn’t know what we want, but it’s highly capable. Right?

Evan Hubinger: Right.

Lucas Perry: So, while there is a loss function or an objective function, that thing is used to perform gradient descent on the model in a way that moves it roughly in the right direction. But what that means, it seems, is that the model isn’t just something about capability. The model also implicitly somehow builds into it the objective. Is that correct?

Evan Hubinger: We have to be careful here because the unfortunate truth is that we really just don’t have a great understanding of what our models are doing, and what the inductive biases of gradient descent are right now. So, fundamentally, we don’t really know what the internal structures of our models are like. There’s a lot of really exciting research, stuff like the circuits analysis from Chris Olah and the clarity team at OpenAI. But fundamentally, we don’t understand what the models are doing. We can sort of theorize about the possibility of a model that’s running some search process, and that search process generalizes, but the objective doesn’t. But fundamentally, because our models are these black box systems that we don’t really fully understand, it’s hard to really concretely say, “Yes, this is what the model is doing. This is how it’s operating, and this is the problem.”

But in Risks from Learned Optimization, we try to at least attempt to understand that problem, and look at, if we really think carefully about what gradient descent is incentivizing and how it might work, what are the things which we might predict would happened? So, the objective that you’re training the model for it does not live in the model. It lives in the gradient descent process. It lives in the training procedure. We might hope that when we train a model on an objective, that it will produce its own model of that objective and try to figure out what it is and be aligned with it. But we don’t know exactly what happens. The model doesn’t get to see the objective you’re training for. All that happens is that the gradient descent process looks at its behavior and tries to make it so that its behavior is more aligned with the loss function.

But that loss function never enters into the model, somehow, the model never sees that loss function, it might have some objective internally. Like I was saying, if it’s a mesa optimizer, and then we might hope that that objective is aligned with the loss function we’re training it for. But fundamentally, all we know is that it’s behavior on the training distribution was aligned with the loss function.

Lucas Perry: That makes sense. Because it’s so black boxy, we can’t really interpret the state of the alignment of the model. So, is the only way to do that to test it out of distribution and see what happens at this point?

Evan Hubinger: There are a bunch of different possible ways to address this problem. Certainly, one approach is to try to test it out of distribution, which is an adversarial training approach. This model is going to have some potential failure modes off distribution. We can try to find those failure modes and then train the model on those failure modes to prevent it from having this bad off distribution behavior. There are some concerns with adversarial training though. In particular, adversarial training doesn’t necessarily catch what I see as the most pernicious difficult inner alignment failure, which is something that we call deceptive alignment in the Risks from Learned Optimization paper. In the deceptive alignment case, if the model knows that it’s being adversarially trained, then you’re not going to be able to figure that out just via throwing it a bunch of examples.

You can also do something like transparency, as I mentioned previously that there’s a lot of really exciting transparency interpretability work. If you’re able to sort of look inside the model and understand what algorithm it’s fundamentally implementing, you can see, is it implementing an algorithm which is an optimization procedure that’s aligned? Has it learned a correct model of the loss function or an incorrect model? It’s quite difficult, I think, to hope to solve this problem without transparency and interpretability. I think that to be able to really address this problem, we have to have some way to peer inside of our models. I think that that’s possible though. There’s a lot of evidence that points to the neural networks that we’re training really making more sense, I think, than people assume.

People tend to treat their models as these sort of super black box things, but when we really look inside of them, when we look at what is it actually doing, a lot of times, it just makes sense. I was mentioning some of the circuits analysis work from the clarity team at OpenAI, and they find all sorts of behavior. Like, we can actually understand when a model classifies something as a car, the reason that it’s doing that is because it has a wheel detector and it has a window detector, and it’s looking for windows on top of wheels. So, we can be like, “Okay, we understand what algorithm the model is influencing, and based on that we can figure out, is it influencing the right algorithm or the wrong algorithm? That’s how we can hope to try and address this problem.” But obviously, like I was mentioning, all of these approaches get much more complicated in the deceptive alignment situation, which is the situation which I think is most concerning.

Lucas Perry: All right. So, I do want to get in here with you in terms of all the ways in which inner alignment fails. Briefly, before we start to move into this section, I do want to wrap up here then on outer alignment. Outer alignment is probably, again, what most people are familiar with. I think the way that you put this is it’s when the objective function or the loss function is not aligned with actual human values and preferences. Are there things other than loss functions or objective functions used to train the model via gradient descent?

Evan Hubinger: I’ve sort of been interchanging a little bit between loss function and reward function and objective function. Fundamentally, these are sort of from different paradigms in machine learning, so the reward function would be what you would use in a reinforcement learning context. The loss function is the more general term, which is in a supervised learning context, you would just have a loss function. You still have the loss function in a reinforcement learning context, but that loss function is crafted in such a way to incentivize the models, optimize the reward function via various different reinforcement learning schemes, so it’s a little bit more complicated than the sort of hand-wavy picture, but the basic idea is machine learning is we have some objective and we’re looking for parameterizations of our model, which do well according to that objective.

Lucas Perry: Okay. The outer alignment problem is that we have absolutely no idea, and it seems much harder than creating powerful optimizers, the process by which we would come to fully understand human preferences and preference hierarchies and values.

Evan Hubinger: Yeah. I don’t know if I would say “we have absolutely no idea.” We have made significant progress on outer alignment. In particular, you can look at something like amplification or debate. I think that these sorts of approaches have strong arguments for why they might be outer aligned. In a simplest form, amplification is about training a model to mimic this HCH process, which is a huge tree of humans consulting each other. Maybe we don’t know in the abstract what our AI would do if it were optimized in some definition of human values or whatever, but if we’re just training it to mimic this huge tree of humans, then maybe we can at least understand what this huge tree of humans is doing and figure out whether amplification is aligned.

So, there has been significant progress on outer alignment, which is sort of the reason that I’m less concerned about it right now, because I think that we have good approaches for it, and I think we’ve done a good job of coming up with potential solutions. There’s still a lot more work that needs to be done, a lot more testing, a lot more to really understand do these approaches work, are they competitive? But I do think that to say that we have absolutely no idea of how to do this is not true. But that being said, there’s still a whole bunch of different possible concerns.

Whenever you’re training a model on some objective, you run into all of these problems of instrumental convergence, where if the model isn’t really aligned with you, it might try to do these instrumentally convergent goals, like keep itself alive, potentially stop you from turning it off, or all of these other different possible things, which we might not want. All of these are what the outer alignment problem looks like. It’s about trying to address these standard value alignment concerns, like convergent instrumental goals, by finding objectives, potentially like amplification, which are ways of avoiding these sorts of problems.

Lucas Perry: Right. I guess there’s a few things here wrapping up on outer alignment. Nick Bostrom’s Superintelligence, that was basically about outer alignment then, right?

Evan Hubinger: Primarily, that’s right. Yeah.

Lucas Perry: Inner alignment hadn’t really been introduced to the alignment debate yet.

Evan Hubinger: Yeah. I think the history of how this concern got into the AI safety sphere is complicated. I mentioned previously that there are people going around and talking about stuff like optimization daemons, and I think a lot of that discourse was very confused and not pointing at how machine learning actually works, and was sort of just going off of, “Well, it seems like there’s something weird that happens in evolution where evolution finds humans that aren’t aligned with what evolution wants.” That’s a very good point. It’s a good insight. But I think that a lot of people recoiled from this because it was not grounded in machine learning, because I think a lot of it was very confused and it didn’t fully give the problem the contextualization that it needs in terms of how machine learning actually works.

So, the goal of Risks from Learned Optimization was to try and solve that problem and really dig into this problem from the perspective of machine learning, understand how it works and what the concerns are. Now with the paper having been out for awhile, I think the results have been pretty good. I think that we’ve gotten to a point now where lots of people are talking about inner alignment and taking it really seriously as a result of the Risks from Learned Optimization paper.

Lucas Perry: All right, cool. You did mention sub goal, so I guess I just wanted to include that instrumental sub goals is the jargon there, right?

Evan Hubinger: Convergent instrumental goals, convergent instrumental sub goals. Those are synonymous.

Lucas Perry: Okay. Then related to that is Goodhart’s law, which says that when you optimize for one thing hard, you oftentimes don’t actually get the thing that you want. Right?

Evan Hubinger: That’s right. Goodhart’s law is a very general problem. The same problem occurs both in inner alignment and outer alignment. You can see Goodhart’s law showing itself in the case of convergent instrumental goals. You can also see Goodhart’s law showing itself in the case of finding proxies, like going to the green arrow rather than getting the end of the maze. It’s a similar situation where when you start pushing on some proxy, even if it looked like it was good on the training distribution, it’s no longer as good off distribution. Goodhart’s law is a really very general principle which applies in many different circumstances.

Lucas Perry: Are there any more of these outer alignment considerations we can kind of just list off here that listeners would be familiar with if they’ve been following AI alignment?

Evan Hubinger: Outer alignment has been discussed a lot. I think that there’s a lot of literature on outer alignment. You mentioned Superintelligence. Superintelligence is primarily about this alignment problem. Then all of these difficult problems of how do you actually produce good objectives, and you have problems like boxing and the stop button problem, and all of these sorts of things that come out of thinking about outer alignment. So, I don’t want to go into too much detail because I think it really has been talked about a lot.

Lucas Perry: So then pivoting here into focusing on the inner alignment section, why do you think inner alignment is the most important form of alignment?

Evan Hubinger: It’s not that I see outer alignment as not concerning, but that I think that we have made a lot of progress on outer alignment and not made a lot of progress on inner alignment. Things like amplification, like I was mentioning, I think are really strong candidates for how we might be able to solve something like outer alignment. But currently I don’t think we have any really good strong candidates for how to solve inner alignment. You know? Maybe as machine learning gets better, we’ll just solve some of these problems automatically. I’m somewhat skeptical of that. In particular, deceptive alignment is a problem which I think is unlikely to get solved as machine learning gets better, but fundamentally we don’t have good solutions to the inner alignment problem.

Our models are just these black boxes mostly right now, we’re sort of starting to be able to peer into them and understand what they’re doing. We have some techniques like adversarial training that are able to help us here, but I don’t think we really have good satisfying solutions in any sense to how we’d be able to solve inner alignment. Because of that, inner alignment is currently what I see as the biggest, most concerning issue in terms of prosaic AI alignment.

Lucas Perry: How exactly does inner alignment fail then? Where does it go wrong, and what are the top risks of inner alignment?

Evan Hubinger: I’ve mentioned some of this before. There’s this sort of basic maze example, which gives you the story of what an inner alignment failure might look like. You train the model on some objective, which you thought was good, but the model learns some proxy objective, some other objective, which when it moved off distribution, it was very capable of optimizing, but it was the wrong objective. However, there’s a bunch of specific cases, and so in Risks from Learned Optimization, we talk about many different ways in which you can break this general inner misalignment down into possible sub problems. The most basic sub problem is this sort of proxy pseudo alignment is what we call it, which is the case where your model learns some proxy, which is correlated with the correct objective, but potentially comes apart when you move off distribution.

But there are other causes as well. There are other possible ways in which this can happen. Another example would be something we call sub optimality pseudo alignment, which is a situation where the reason that the model looks like it has good training performance is because the model has some deficiency or limitation that’s causing it to be aligned, where maybe once the model thinks for longer, you’ll realize it should be doing some other strategy, which is misaligned, but it hasn’t thought about that yet, and so right now it just looks aligned. There’s a lot of different things like this where the model can be structured in such a way that it looks aligned on the training distribution, but if it encountered additional information, if it was in a different environment where the proxy no longer had the right correlations, the things would come apart and it would no longer act aligned.

The most concerning, in my eyes, is something which I’ll call deceptive alignment. Deceptive alignment is a sort of very particular problem where the model acts aligned because it knows that it’s in a training process, and it wants to get deployed with its objective intact, and so it acts aligned so that its objective won’t be modified by the gradient descent process, and so that it can get deployed and do something else that it wants to do in deployment. This is sort of similar to the treacherous turn scenario, where you’re thinking about an AI that does something good, and then it turns on you, but it’s a much more specific instance of it where we’re thinking not about treacherous turn on humans, but just about the situation of the interaction between gradient descent and the model, where the model maybe knows it’s inside of a gradient descent process and is trying to trick that gradient descent process.

A lot of people on encountering this are like, “How could this possibly happen in a machine learning system?” I think this is a good reaction because it really is a very strange thing to train a model to do this. But I think there are strong arguments for why deceptive alignment would actually be the simplest type of model that you could find in this situation.

Lucas Perry: A way of explaining this I think to anyone on the street would be like, imagine if pigs were intelligent enough to create farmers, and you created farmers and they appeared to be aligned, they took care of you and they gave you these nice mud pits and they fed you every day, they gave you shelter and all of these other nice things, and then one day the farmer shows up and kills you, right? You thought the thing that you created was aligned, but it was deceptively aligned, and it takes a treacherous turn. Is this sort of like a more mundane example that you might agree with?

Evan Hubinger: I think that’s a good intuition pump for thinking about this situation. I generally am sort of averse to trying to really heavily apply these sorts of analogies, because it’s a good analogy to think about what’s happening, but it doesn’t answer the core question of how likely is this to actually happen in a machine learning system.

Lucas Perry: Yeah, that makes sense, because it’s much more specific than the other kinds of minds in this mind space. It seems pretty rare, a thing that could exist, but hard to find.

Evan Hubinger: Right. I think that’s a good intuition, but I’m going to try to disavow you of that notion. First, I think it’s interesting to look at maybe you do a bunch of adversarial training, you’re really pushing the model to figure out what the objective is. It needs to know the objective at some point if you are training it in all possible situations. It needs to know what the loss function is for it to be able to do a good job. But there’s multiple possible channels through which information about the loss function can enter the model. And so i’ll fundamentally distinguish between two different channels, which is the information about the loss function can enter through the gradient descent process, or it can enter through the model’s input data.

I’ll call these two channels internalization and modeling. Internalization is the situation where you have this model that’s going along, and it has some proxy objective maybe. That proxy objective is not quite right, but then it gets moved to a new situation where the proxy objective no longer works, and gradient descent goes inside the model and tinkers with the proxy to make it slightly more accurate. Iterate this process many, many times, and eventually the proxy gets better and better and better and better and better, until it starts matching up with the actual loss function. But there’s another story that I can tell, which is modeling.

If you think about a training process like GPT-3 where the model is trained on a huge corpus of all of this really rich input data. Well, in that sort of a situation, there’s a whole bunch of really relevant information in that input to the agent’s objective. An agent, if it’s in this environment, where it has this huge text corpus, it’s going to have to learn a model of this environment and how it functions. We can imagine a situation where maybe you’re training the model on some huge text corpus to do something like maximize human values, or whatever, and it reads a Wikipedia page on ethics. And it’s like, “Wow, look at all of this really relevant, rich, useful information for figuring out this objective.”

But then there’s a second question, which is: suppose that the model has some model of the input data, which includes a bunch of rich information inside of the model already about that objective, how does gradient descent actually modify the model to make use of that information? And so there’s two different types of modeling, which are: deceptive alignment and corrigible alignment. So the corrigible story is you have this model that’s going along, it has some proxy objective, but it encounters this really rich input data, which includes a huge amount of information about the objective. To be able to predict successfully what the Wikipedia page on ethics is going to say, it has to know about ethics. So it learns this really detailed ethics model.

And then gradient descent is like: look, you have this really detailed ethics model, I’m going to just modify your objective to point to that ethics model. Now your new objective is just optimize that. And so this leads to something sort of like corrigibility, where the model that you’re training has its objectives determined by a pointer to some part of its world model. It has some model of this environment that includes some information about ethics. And now it’s trying to optimize for that thing that it’s pointed to in its world model.

Then there’s this other story, which is the deceptive alignment story. Similar, you have a model going along. It has some proxy objective and it learns this really detailed world model that includes a bunch of information about ethics, or whatever. And then gradient descent modifies the model to think longer about the fact that it’s inside of an optimization process and realize that the correct instrumental thing for it to be doing is to optimize for that ethics model. And then it realizes, “Oh, I see, I should optimize for this model that I have.” It goes and does that. And in both situations, you end up being able to make use of this really rich input data to improve the performance, by changing the objective to make reference to that. But in the corrigible case, you actually modify it to point to it, whereas in the deceptive case, you just modify the model to think about the fact that it should be instrumentally optimizing for it.

And then the question is: which one of these is more likely? Before I go into that though, I want to dwell for a second on the internalization versus modeling distinction again. I think a good analogy is thinking about animal imprinting. Think about a duck. You’re trying to train ducks to follow their mothers, or whatever. You can imagine a situation where the duck internalizes a model of its mother, it is born with some really detailed model of how to figure out what a mother is. But there’s also the modeling case where the duck is going to be in the world, it’s going to have to form this really detailed model of the world. And that really detailed model of the world is going to have the very first thing that it encounters should always be the mother. And so rather than having to learn some detailed model of figuring out what mothers are, if you just instead do some modeling process where it’s like, just have the duck’s objective point to the mother in its world model.

This modeling case, you can see it as something like animal imprinting, where rather than really internalizing the objective, because it already has this world model, it might as well just specify the objective in terms of that world model instead. And I haven’t yet talked about why you would get to deception versus corrigibility. Right now I’m just trying to convince you that you should expect modeling. You should expect that if you give your model this huge, really rich detailed input data that it’s going to learn an objective via reference to that input data rather than from scratch. When we think about models being trained, we think about them having some objective and that objective is just modified by gradient descent as it moves along to get closer and closer to reality.

But in the modeling case, that’s not what’s happening. The model is simultaneously learning a model of the world, as well as trying to improve its objective. And the objective is modified to make reference to that model of the world, to make it more effective. So internalization is: it just wants the same thing as you do, and so it does it because it wants the same thing. Whereas corrigibility is it’s trying to figure out what you want and then do that. And then deception is also trying to figure out what you want and then do that, but it’s doing so for instrumental rather than terminal reasons. The instrumental reason is the model can get more reward, it can do better in the long run if it’s able to not be modified by the gradient descent process. So if it’s doing a good job, then gradient descent process won’t change it’s objective, and so therefore, it can get deployed with the same objective and then go do a whole bunch of other stuff that you don’t want it to do.

Lucas Perry: But why does it care about the current objective?

Evan Hubinger: We’re imagining a situation where you have a proxy aligned model, but it cares about that proxy across episodes. It cares about that proxy over time, and it wants that proxy to continue to be optimized for. If the gradient descent process modifies it so that it no longer cares about that proxy, because it’s doing a bad job, then that proxy won’t get optimized for. So if it wants that proxy to get optimized for in the future, it needs to play along, pretend to be doing the right thing so that it doesn’t get modified so that it can get deployed and then go optimize that proxy.

Lucas Perry: But it also needs to understand that it’s within the context of an optimization process where gradient descent will continue to perturb it?

Evan Hubinger: That’s exactly right.

Lucas Perry: And where does that kind of awareness come from?

Evan Hubinger: So now we have the second question: which is deception versus corrigibility. The awareness comes from gradient descent. Gradient descent is trying to produce models which are better at the loss function. And a deceptive model is really good and really effective because it’s trying very hard to do the thing that you want it to be doing. Both deception and corrigibility are situations where the model is trying to figure out what to do and then do that. And the question is, which is an easier model, which is a simpler model for gradient descent to find? And I think there’s a strong argument for deception being simpler than corrigibility. Corrigibility has some fundamental difficulties in terms of… If you’re imagining gradient descent process, which is looking at a proxy aligned model and is trying to modify it so that it makes use of this rich input data, it has to do some really weird things to make corrigibility work.

It has to first make a very robust pointer. With corrigibility, if it’s pointing at all incorrectly to the wrong thing in the input data, wrong thing in the world model, the corrigible optimizer won’t correct that pointer. It’ll just be like, “Well, I have this pointer. I’m just trying to optimize for what this thing is pointing for,” and if that pointer is pointing at a proxy instead, you’ll just optimize that proxy. And so you have this very difficult problem of building robust pointers. With deception, you don’t have this problem. A deceptive model, if it realizes the loss function is different than what it thought, it’ll just change to doing the new loss function. It’s actually much more robust to new information because it’s trying to do this instrumentally. And so in a new situation, if it realizes that the loss function is different, it’s just going to automatically change because it’ll realize that’s the better thing to do instrumentally.

And so fundamentally, deception is more robust. It gives you a more robust pointer. It’s easier in that sense. There’s another sense in which corrigibility is very difficult. To produce a corrigible model requires deception modifying the model’s optimization process to be capable of optimizing under uncertainty. For a corrigible model, because it has this pointer as its objective, it’s going to start not really knowing what that pointer is pointing to. It’s going to have some probability distribution over the different possibilities, and it’s going to have to know how to optimize under that probability distribution of objectives rather than under a single objective. And so this problem of optimization under uncertainty, it’s much more complicated than just optimizing under a fixed objective. What that means is that to produce a corrigible optimizer, gradient descent has to do all of these modifications, where it has to modify it to optimize under uncertainty, and to have the super robust pointer to the part of its world model that it’s supposed to be optimizing for.

But if you compare this to deception, gradient descent modifying a model to become deceptive is extremely simple. It needs to modify the model to have a longterm objective, to think about what its objective is across many different instances. And then it just needs to modify the model to think for a while about the fact that it’s in an optimization process and what the right thing is to do. And that modification is not very complicated because it’s just a simple modification of: think more about this particular thing, which is exactly the sort of modification that you should expect to happen all the time when you’re training a model. And so I think it’s a fundamentally much simpler modification. There’s also another argument that you can make here, which is: there’s just a lot more deceptive models. Any proxy objective, once a model, which is optimizing that proxy objective, starts optimizing that objective more in the longterm, across episodes, and then thinks about the fact that it’s an optimization process, will become deceptive.

But to produce corrigibility, you have to find exactly the right pointer. There’s many different possible pointers out there, only one of which is going to give you the exact correct pointer. And similar with the internalization, there’s many different proxies. Only one is the actual true loss function. Whereas with deceptive alignment, any of those different properties, they’re all compatible with deception. And so I think there’s a lot of strong arguments, both this argument for there being many more deceptive optimizers, as well as the simplicity argument for the modification necessary to produce a deceptive optimizer is just a lot simpler, I think, than the modifications necessary to produce these other types of optimizers. And so, because of this, I think that there’s a strong case to be made for deception really not being that uncommon, not being something crazy to think would happened in the training process, but is maybe even potentially the default outcome of a lot of these sorts of training procedures, which is quite, quite scary and quite concerning.

And obviously all of this is speculation. We’re trying to understand from a theoretical process what this gradient process might do, but I think we can make a lot of strong cases about thinking about things like simplicity and accounting arguments to at least put this problem on the radar. Until we have a really strong reason that this isn’t a problem, we should take it seriously. Buck, who’s another person who works at MIRI, often tries to explain some of the risks from learned optimization stuff and he has an analogy that might be useful here. You can imagine the Christian god and the Christian god is trying to produce humans which are aligned with the Bible. And you can imagine three different possible humans. You have Jesus who is just the same as god. Jesus has the same objective as god. Jesus is aligned with god because he just fundamentally wants to do the exact same things.

Lucas Perry: That’s internalization.

Evan Hubinger: That would be internalization. You could have Martin Luther. Martin Luther is aligned with God because he wants to really carefully study the Bible, figure out what the Bible says, and then do that. And that’s the corrigibility case. Or you can have Blaise Pascal and Blaise Pascal is aligned with God because he thinks that if he does what God wants, he’ll go to heaven in the future. And these are the three different possible models that God could find and you’re more likely to find a Jesus, a Martin Luther or a Blaise Pascal.

And the argument is there’s only one Jesus, so out of all the different possible human objectives, only one of them is going to be the exact same one that God wants. And Martin Luther, similarly, is very difficult because out of all the human objectives, there’s only one of them, which is: figure out precisely what the Bible wants and then do that. The Blaise Pascal, in this situation, anybody who realizes that God’s going to send them to heaven or hell, or whatever, based on their behavior, will realize that they should behave according to the Bible, or whatever. And so there’s many different possible Blaise Pascals but there’s significantly fewer possible Martin Luthers and Jesuses.

Lucas Perry: I think that’s an excellent way of simplifying this. Blaise Pascal can care about any kind of proxy. I guess the one thing that I’m still a little bit confused about here is in terms of the deceptive version, again, why is it that it cares about the current proxy reward?

Evan Hubinger: I think that has to do with the structure of the training procedure. You start out usually, I think, with a proxy aligned mesa optimizer. Maybe you start out with a bunch of heuristics, but then once you get a mesa optimizer, it’ll usually start by being proxy aligned. It’ll have some proxy that’s not quite the same as the loss function, at least if you’re in a complex enough environment. There’s a whole bunch of different possibilities. It’s going to start with some proxy, but then you might hope that if you do a bunch of adversarial training, you train it for a really long time in a bunch of different environments, you’ll be able to improve that proxy until you get to the point where it has the right thing.

And the deceptive alignment is about asking the question; there’s actually multiple different possible ways for a model to figure out the loss function. It could figure it out via internalization or it could figure it out via deception or it can figure out via corrigibility. And we don’t know which one of these is more likely. You might imagine that if you start with the proxy aligned mesca optimizer, you train it a bunch, it’ll internalize the correct objective. So the argument that I’m making here is that might not be what happens. And so the reason that I’m saying you start with the proxy aligned mesa optimizers is because I think that’s the way that you should expect that the training procedure will be structured, that you’ll start by learning some proxy and then that proxy will get better, but that having that proxy get better could result internalization or deception or corrigibility.

Lucas Perry: Sure. So the model developed some kind of proxy, but it seems like the other necessary ingredients are, one: it knows that it’s in an optimization process where gradient descent is changing its objective function, and then it requires, two: it actually cares about its current objective function over time and over iterations?

Evan Hubinger: That’s absolutely right. And so then the question to ask is: how likely are those things to occur. And I think it’s the really important point, which I want to make, a lot of times when people think about this, they’re like, “It seems unlikely that it would just happen to develop this understanding and care about it’s thing longterm.” It doesn’t just happen. It happens as a result of the training procedure, because if it does happen, it results in significantly better performance. And so the question is: would gradient descent modify the model to have those properties? And that’s the argument that I want to make is that it’s not that necessarily the model just happens to develop deception, but the deceptive models are just really effective at pursuing reward on the training environment. And so you should expect that if you have a really good training process, that it’s going to find deceptive models because they’re really good at doing the thing you’re training them for.

And so that’s the most fundamental argument that I want to make. But I do think there’s another level here where as you’re getting to the point where you’re training models and very complex data sets, where they have huge amounts of really rich information, we should expect the model to basically figure out most things. You should expect that if it’s going to have to learn all of this really complex data, it’s going to have to build a world model that’s going to include the training process, that’s going to include the loss function. And so I think that as we move into this direction of training more and more complex data sets, more and more complex models, you don’t want to rely on your model not figuring something out, especially when figuring that thing out results in it having better performance.

Now there’s also this question of: does it care about its return across episodes versus just across multiple steps? And for deception, it needs to care about the multi episode return. And this is also another critical point. I think there’s a strong argument that if you imagine a model being trained to care about its multi-step return, and maybe also I should pause here and explain what I mean by step versus episode. So in the standard reinforcement learning setup, you have many different episodes. Each episode is composed of many different steps and you train the model to only optimize its single episode return, its reward across all the different steps in an episode, but not across episodes. That’s not always the case. There are some reinforcement learning procedures that optimize across episodes. An example of this is something like population-based training. Population-based training selects models which have the greatest reward across episodes, not simply within the episode.

Though, standard reinforcement learning, you’re just selecting for the single episode return. But even if you’re just selecting for the single episode return, you have the same general problem that we’ve been talking about where it’s not the case that you actually end up with a model necessarily that only cares about single-step return. You’re just going to end up with a model that behaves like it cares about single-step return on the training distribution. And if you imagine a situation where you have a model and it’s been trained to optimize for this objective over many steps, and then it discovers that actually there’s these other episodes that are beyond this current step. I think that the most natural generalization is that you should expect that the model is going to care about those other steps too.

You can imagine a situation where every situation where the model has seen a blue door, it’s been like, “Oh, going through this blue is really good,” and it’s learned an objective that incentivizes going through blue doors. If it then later realizes that there are more blue doors than it thought because there are other blue doors in other episodes, I think you should generally expect it’s going to care about those blue doors as well. But again, even if you don’t buy that, it’s not just about what’s most natural. It’s also about: what does the gradient descent process do? And because models which have this property, that plan across episodes, can become deceptive and therefore do really well in the training distribution, you should expect that a good training process, it’s going to modify them to become deceptive, even if they wouldn’t naturally.

Lucas Perry: Okay. So help me just understand a little bit more here. At a high level, it seems that the internalization and the corrigibility things require higher specification than the deception version. You’ve brought up all these different arguments about why you think that the deceptive version is easier to find because it has all of these computational benefits in terms of minimizing the loss function, right?

Evan Hubinger: That’s right.

Lucas Perry: And the structure of the deceptive model is composed of, as we mentioned earlier, one: the knowledge that it is within some kind of optimization process where it is being perturbed by gradient descent over episodes, and that it cares about the current proxy over episodes. And it seems that you’re arguing, correct me if I’m wrong, the manifestation of these components is that the strong desire to deceive leads to a very strong, direct attempt at actually minimizing the loss or accomplishing the objective function?

Evan Hubinger: That’s right.

Lucas Perry: Because if it fails at doing that, it won’t be able to accomplish the proxy that it actually cares about later?

Evan Hubinger: That’s right. If there’s more deployment episodes than training episodes, and it just cares about how many times it goes through the blue door or the green arrow, or whatever, the green arrow is a proxy objective, and so if it gives up the fact that it’s optimizing for the green arrow, it’s going to get modified to not do that anymore. And so if it wants to go to the green arrow in all of these different deployment episodes, it needs to first, in the training procedure, pretend that it doesn’t care about the green arrow. And then once it’s deployed, switch to going after the green arrow. This also requires the models to know when it’s in training and when it’s in deployment.

This is another situation where I think you should expect that when you’re training really advanced models with these huge world models, that they figure out this information, but also even if it doesn’t figure out that information, it can gamble. It can be like, “Well, there’s some chance I’m in deployment. There’s some chance I’m in training. I will just opt to go to the green arrow some percentage of the time and do the correct thing some other percentage of the time.” And this gives you a decision problem which you can solve mathematically. You get some optimal defection probability.

Lucas Perry: Okay. And then going up, in terms of specification one step, the corrigible agent needs to have a very detailed world model where it has a pointer via gradient descent at some specific part of the world model that seems to correlate highly with minimizing the loss.

Evan Hubinger: That’s right.

Lucas Perry: Why is that less likely?

Evan Hubinger: Well, so the major two reasons that I want to argue for are, one: getting the pointer right is really hard and very difficult to do robustly, whereas getting the deception right is much easier to do robustly. Think about animal imprinting. If the animal imprints on a human caretaker instead, if you have a missspecified pointer, it doesn’t actually have very good performance. The deceptive alignment is more robust at figuring out what the thing is it’s trying to optimize for because the corrigible alignment relies on this pointer working successfully. And if the pointer fails, it’s just going to optimize for the wrong thing.

Lucas Perry: But why can’t the pointer change just as well as the attempt at satisfying the actual loss function in the deceptive model?

Evan Hubinger: So absolutely can. But the question I want to ask is: how difficult is it for gradient descent to make one sequence of modifications versus another sequence of modifications? The sequence of modification that leads to corrigibility versus the sequence that leads to deceptive alignment. The sequence of modifications necessary to produce corrigible alignment requires all of this very, very careful pointer tuning. And so, you can imagine if you’re considering an infinitesimal movement in the direction of corrigible alignment, imagine replacing your current proxy with a bad pointer. It’s not going to be that great. You’re going to have to put a lot of careful optimization effort into getting a really good pointer before it becomes better to be corrigible.

Whereas with deception, the model could build up this really good world model. And once the world model gets complicated enough that it includes a specification of the fact that it’s in a training process, as soon as it starts thinking about the training process, it’s going to be as robust as it can be because it’s going to instrumentally just want to try to figure out what is the best possible approximation I can get for this thing I’m being trained for, so I can optimize it as effectively as possible. And so this gives you a much more robust pointer compared to the corrigible alignment case.

Lucas Perry: And so the danger would be with the deceptive version: once it’s unleashed upon the world and it has a very excellent world model, it realizes this and finally now I can do the deceptive turn, or something like that, to actually optimize the proxy?

Evan Hubinger: That’s right, yeah.

Lucas Perry: So we’ve covered a lot of the ways in which inner alignment fails. Now, inner alignment and outer alignment are two of the things which you care about for evaluating proposals, for building safe and advanced AI. There are two other properties that you care about training procedures for building beneficial AI. One of these is training competitiveness and the second one is performance competitiveness. Could you explain what training competitiveness is and performance competitiveness and why they’re both important?

Evan Hubinger: Absolutely, yeah. So I mentioned at the beginning that I have a broad view of AI alignment where the goal is to try to mitigate AI existential risks. And I mentioned that what I’m working on is focused on this intent alignment problem, but a really important facet of that problem is this competitiveness question. We don’t want to produce AI systems which are going to lead to AI existential risks. And so we don’t want to consider proposals which are directly going to cause problems. As the safety community, what we’re trying to do is not just come up with ways to not cause existential risk. Not doing anything doesn’t cause existential risk. It’s to find ways to capture the positive benefits of artificial intelligence, to be able to produce AIs which are actually going to do good things. You know why we actually tried to build AIs in the first place?

We’re actually trying to build AIs because we think that there’s something that we can produce which is good, because we think that AIs are going to be produced on a default timeline and we want to make sure that we can provide some better way of doing it. And so the competitiveness question is about how do we produce AI proposals which actually reduce the probability of existential risk? Not that just don’t themselves cause existential risks, but that actually overall reduce the probability of it for the world. There’s a couple of different ways which that can happen. You can have a proposal which improves our ability to produce other safe AI. So we produce some aligned AI and that aligned AI helps us build other AIs which are even more aligned and more powerful. We can also maybe produce an aligned AI and then producing that aligned AI helps provide an example to other people of how you can do AI in a safe way, or maybe it provides some decisive strategic advantage, which enables you to successfully ensure that only good AI is produced in the future.

There’s a lot of different possible ways in which you could imagine building an AI leading to reduced existential risks, but competitiveness is going to be a critical component of any of those stories. You need your AI to actually do something. And so I like to split competitiveness down into two different sub components, which are training competitiveness performance competitiveness. And in the overview of 11 proposals document that I mentioned at the beginning, I compare 11 different proposals for prosaic AI alignment on the four qualities of outer alignment, inner alignment, training competitiveness, and performance competitiveness. So training competitiveness is this question of how hard is it to train a model to do this particular task? It’s a question fundamentally of, if you have some team with some lead over all different other possible AI teams, can they build this proposal that we’re thinking about without totally sacrificing that lead? How hard is it to actually spend a bunch of time and effort and energy and compute and data to build an AI, according to some particular proposal?

And then performance competitiveness is the question of once you’ve actually built the thing, how good is it? How effective is it? What is it able to do in the world that’s really helpful for reducing existential risk? Fundamentally, you need both of these things. And so you need all four of these components. You need outer alignment, inner alignment, training competitiveness, and performance competitiveness if you want to have a prosaic AI alignment proposal that is aimed at reducing existential risk.

Lucas Perry: This is where a bit more reflection on governance comes in to considering which training procedures and models are able to satisfy the criteria for building safe advanced AI in a world of competing actors and different incentives and preferences.

Evan Hubinger: The competitive stuff definitely starts to touch on all those sorts of questions. When you take a step back and you think about how do you have an actual full proposal for building prosaic AI in a way which is going to be aligned and do something good for the world, you have to really consider all of these questions. And so that’s why I tried to look at all of these different things in the document that I mentioned.

Lucas Perry: So in terms of training competitiveness and performance competitiveness, are these the kinds of things which are best evaluated from within leading AI companies and then explained to say people in governance or policy or strategy?

Evan Hubinger: It is still sort of a technical question. We need to have a good understanding of how AI works, how machine learning works, what the difficulty is of training different types of machine learning models, what the expected capabilities are of models trained under different regimes, as well as the outer alignment and inner alignment that we expect will happen.

Lucas Perry: I guess I imagine the coordination here is that information on relative training competitiveness and performance competitiveness in systems is evaluated within AI companies and then possibly fed to high power decision makers who exist in strategy and governance for coming up with the correct strategy, given the landscape of companies and AI systems which exist?

Evan Hubinger: Yeah, that’s right.

Lucas Perry: All right. So we have these intent alignment problems. We have inner alignment and we have outer alignment. We’ve learned about that distinction today, and reasons for caring about training and performance competitiveness. So, part of the purpose of this, I mean, is in the title for this paper that partially motivated this conversation, An Overview of 11 Proposals for Building Safe and Advanced AI. You evaluate these proposals based on these criteria, as we mentioned. So I guess, I want to take this time now then to talk about how optimistic you are about, say your top few favorite proposals for building safe and advanced AI and how you’ve roughly evaluated them on these four criteria of inner alignment, outer alignment, and then performance and training competitiveness.

Evan Hubinger: I’ll just touch on some of the ones that I think are most interesting to start by taking a look at. And it’s not necessarily just going to be the ones I think I’m most excited about, because some are more complicated than others. I want to start with some of the simpler ones and some of the ones that I am fairly excited about and I think are interesting, but that also are pedagogically useful to take a look at. I’ll start with amplification, which is the approach that I probably spend the most time thinking about.

The specific form of amplification that I want to start by talking about is imitative amplification, where imitative amplification specifically means the procedure of training a model to imitate a human with access to that model. The goal is to produce models imitating this HCH tree, which I mentioned earlier, this tree of humans consulting humans. The model is trained to mimic a human consulting the model, but then the models that that human is consulting with themselves trained to mimic humans consulting models, which were themselves trained to mimic humans consulting models. So the limit that you’re hoping to end up with this model trained to mimic this tree of humans consulting humans consulting humans, which is HCH for humans consulting HCH.

The specific way to try to talk about this though in the overview of 11 proposals, is that there’s an additional thing which you can do on top of this imitative objective, which is, we also want to add some form of inner alignment solution. So we might think that imitative amplification is going to be good in the limit. It’s going to be good if we can actually produce models, which are really trying to predict HCH, but we also have to actually ensure that we’re doing that, that we don’t get deceptive models or other sort of bad inner misalignment problems.

And so we can add on top of imitative amplification, something which I call relaxed adversarial training. I have another post that came out of some of the work I did at OpenAI, which really goes in detail into how you would do something like relaxed adversarial training of what it means, or how it works. But fundamentally, the idea behind relaxed adversarial training is to train the model, both to do the base objective of trying to imitate the human consulting the model, but also on an additional objective of trying to decrease the probability that the model is doing something bad, it’s deceptive as assessed by some overseer, which is looking at the model. Which in this case, in the case of amplification, the overseer would be the human with access to the model.

So you’re training overall on the objective of mimicking the human with access to the model and making it so that the human with access to the model, when that human with the help of the model uses transparency tools to look at the model and see what it’s doing, making sure that that human believes that the model is doing the right thing. And so you’re combining training on the imitative objective as well as on the relaxed adversarial training objective, trying to make it so that this oversight works.

Lucas Perry: How do you evaluate that in terms of your criteria?

Evan Hubinger: We can start with outer alignment. So the question of outer alignment is, is this HCH tree aligned? And the hope is that because this HCH is just composed of humans, that if we can understand the human behavior and ensure that those humans are doing the right thing, which we might hope to do. We’ve solved lots of human coordination problems in the past that we can ensure that this thing is outer aligned.

For inner alignment, inner alignment is this question of relaxed adversarial training. So in particular, the way in which I think about solving relaxed adversarial training in this situation is that you have this big model space and you have some set of deceptive models. And if you want to avoid that set of deceptive models, one thing which you can do is you can find some larger set, which contains all the deceptive models, such that it’s very easy to check whether there are models in that set or not. As long as outside of the set contains enough competitive models that they’re able to do the right thing, your relaxed adversarial training will work.

There’s a bunch of different ideas for how you could define a set like this, but the one which I’m most excited about, which I think about the most is to have the set be based on the distinction of myopia. Where you run this relaxed adversarial training check by looking at the model, determining whether the model cares about its multi-episode return or not. If the model does care about its multi-episode return, then it has the potential to become deceptive. And so we don’t allow that.

We have it so that the overseer, if it sees that it cares about the multi-episode return, oversight fails. And if it sees that it doesn’t care about the multi-episode return, then the oversight passes. And then we train the model to cause the oversight to pass so that it doesn’t develop this behavior where it cares about the multi-episode return. That’s the basic idea of how you could use relaxed adversarial training here to solve inner alignment.

And then you have training competitiveness, it’s sort of this imitation learning problem. We’re trying to train the model to imitate the human with access to the model. There’s all sorts of potential problems here. It could be very difficult to get a bunch of human data for this problem, as well as if you’re just doing imitation learning, there’s some concerns of, is the model really going to learn these sort of powerful long-term optimization, especially if you’re specifically selecting it to be myopic? Also, there’s a question of how rich is the reward signal, which is produced by imitation learning? Imitation learning uses some sort of fixed distance metric to determine the distance between what the model produced and what was predicted.

Generally, this is done by having the language model which reduces the probability distribution, and then determining the probability under that distribution of the sentences produced by the human with access to the model. And so you have this problem of how rich is the training signal, how difficult is the training? I think we really don’t know what the training competitiveness is going to be, but I think there’s reason to be optimistic. I mean, a lot of these sorts of simple language modeling tasks, like GPT-2 and GPT-3 have been very successful. And so this is very similar to that in that sort of vein, and so you can hope that it’ll also be hopefully successful similarly.

And then you have the performance competitiveness, and for performance competitiveness, the real question is how powerful is this HCH thing? Can HCH actually solve all the problems you’ve wanted to solve? And this is going to be a question of, how do you train your humans? Can the human take any question and decompose it into different sub questions such that the answer to those sub questions can be recombined into an answer to the whole question? Is this possible for all questions? So there are some questions which are undecomposable, in which case it wouldn’t be competitive, but if you can decompose all of these questions, it sort of should have performance competitiveness.

So the one that I’ve been talking about imitative amplification plus relaxed adversarial training is the one that I work on the most, and it’s probably the one I’m most optimistic about. There’s others that are also really interesting. I mean, I think all of the proposals, every proposal on the list has lots of strong arguments in favor of it and lots of real reasons to consider it.

Another proposal which I have talked about previously is AI safety via debate. So AI safety via debate has some similar properties to amplification, but it has a different objective. Rather than trying to mimic HCH, you’re trying to do this debate procedure where you have two different models trying to defend two different sides of some proposition, and convince the judge to agree with one of those sides. There’s some strong arguments for why this sort of procedure would have nice outer alignment properties because it converges to something like what the judge’s equilibrium beliefs are after having seen all of the arguments in favor. And so we might hope that this sort of equilibrium beliefs are going to be good.

There’s lots of work also that’s been done to try to improve the ability to access like the true equilibrium beliefs to really give the judge all possible information. There’s some work that was done by Paul Christiano and Beth Barnes about this cross-examination mechanism, which gives it significantly better performance competitiveness properties by allowing it to access a larger complexity class. But then the other question is then what can you do on top of AI safety via debate to help with inner alignment?

An interesting thing that you can do is you can have the models trained to use transparency tools on each other to win the debate. If one model is able to look inside the other model and demonstrate that it’s non-myopic or something, then it wins the debate. And so then you can incentivize the models to play this game of trying to look inside of each other and find the inner alignment problems, and then train away from those problems.

For outer alignment, you sort of really have this question of, are the debaters actually incentivized to have some honest, cooperative, helpful answers in the limit. And this is a question of what that equilibrium really looks like. Is it the case that humans are able to be tricked by really persuasive arguments and no counterargument will unpersuade them? Or is it the case that when humans are exposed to all of the best arguments and counterarguments, they come to the right conclusions? We don’t really know, but this is fundamentally what the outer alignment question that’s here. This is sort of a trickier equilibrium to analyze.

With amplification case, we just had to figure out with this concrete tree of humans, but with debate, we have to understand this more abstract, what is this theoretical equilibrium behavior of a human under exposure to all these different arguments? I think there’s a case that from an outer alignment perspective, debate is at least more questionable.

Then we have inner alignment and the situation here is, how successfully can we incentivize these models to inspect each other and be able to identify catastrophic behavior? There’s certainly some problems here. You have to get a good training signal to be able to produce models, which are good at inspecting each other, which probably means you have to produce deceptive models and then have the models find the deception, or at least produce non-myopic models and then have the models find the non-myopia. But then this could also incentivize the models to hide the non-myopia, so it’s a little bit unclear exactly how this works. It’s sort of going to dependent on precisely the properties of the training procedure.

I think there’s some good reasons to be hopeful here for training competitiveness, because the way that the debate game is structured, it lets you do this self-play structure where you have these agents competing on the zero-sum game in a self-play, which is in many ways, similar to a lot of big successes of things like AlphaZero, where AlphaZero is able to solve all these environments by doing this very successful self-play on these zero-sum games.

The biggest problem here is probably getting data, and then there’s the performance competitiveness question, which is how effective would an actual debate agent be? The hope is that in the limit, you should just be able to ask the first debater, what do you think? And then it’ll just choose the most convincing answer, and then you can just go with that. You don’t have to run the whole debate in deployment, but it’s only going to be able to solve these language problems.

It’s just going to give you is the equilibrium of what a human thinks after all of these different arguments, and is that good enough? Is it the case that humans are going to really be able to come to good enough equilibria after they see all these arguments that they’re going to be able to produce really good answers? And also, is it the case that question answering alone is sufficient to be able to be competitive in potentially a very competitive marketplace?

As a third proposal that I think is interesting to go into is something called microscope AI. Microscope AI I think is really interesting to look at because it’s very different from the other proposals that I was just talking about. It has a very different approach to thinking about how do we solve these sorts of problems. For all of these approaches, we need to have some amount of abilities to look inside of our models and learn something about what the model knows. But when you use transparency tools to look inside of the model, it teaches you multiple things. It teaches you about the model. You learn about what the model has learned. But it also teaches you about the world, because the model learned a bunch of useful facts, and if you look inside the model and you can learn those facts yourself, then you become more informed. And so this process itself can be quite powerful.

That’s fundamentally the idea of microscope AI. The idea of microscope AI is to train a predictive model on the data you want to understand, and then use transparency tools to understand what that model learned about that data, and then use that understanding to guide human decision making. And so if you’re thinking about outer alignment, in some sense, this procedure is not really outer aligned because we’re just trying to predict some data. And so that’s not really an aligned objective. If you had a model that was just trying to do a whole bunch of prediction, it wouldn’t be doing good things for the world.

But the hope is that if you’re just training a predictive model, it’s not going to end up being deceptive or otherwise dangerous. And you can also use transparency tools to ensure that it doesn’t become that. We still have to solve inner alignment, like I was saying. It still has to be the case that you don’t produce deceptive models. And in fact, the goal here really is not to produce mesa optimizers at all. The goal is just to produce these predictive systems, which learn a bunch of useful facts and information, but that aren’t running optimization procedures. And hopefully we can do that by having this very simple, predictive objective, and then also by using transparency tools.

And then training competitiveness, we know how to train powerful predictive models now, you know, something like GPT-2, and now GPT-3, these are predictive models on task prediction. And so we know this process, we know that we’re very good at it. And so hopefully we’ll be able to continue to be good at it into the future. The real sticky point with microscope AI is the performance competitiveness question. So is enhanced human understanding actually going to be sufficient to solve the use cases we might want for like advanced AI? I don’t know. It’s really hard to know the answer to this question, but you can imagine some situations where it is and some situations where it isn’t.

So, for situations where you need to do long-term, careful decision making, it probably would be, right? If you want to replace CEOs or whatever, that’s a sort of very general decision making process that can be significantly improved just by having much better human understanding of what’s happening. You don’t necessarily need the AI to making the decision. On the other hand, if you need fine-grained manipulation tasks or very, very quick response times, AIs managing a factory or something, then maybe this wouldn’t be sufficient because you would need the AIs to be doing all of this quick decision making and you couldn’t have it just giving information to a few.

One specific situation, which I think is important to think about also is the situation of using your first AI system to help build a second AI system, and making sure that second AI system is aligned and competitive. I think that it also performs pretty well there. You could use a microscope AI to get a bunch of information about the process of AIs and how they work and how training works, and then get a whole bunch of information about that. Have the humans learn that information, then use that information to improve our building of the next AIs and other AIs that we build.

There are certain situations where microscope AI is performance competitive, situations where it wouldn’t be performance competitive, but it’s a very interesting proposal because it’s sort of tackling it from a very different angle. It’s like, well, maybe we don’t really need to be building agents. Maybe we don’t really need to be doing this stuff. Maybe we can just be building this microscope AI. I should mention the microscope AI idea comes from Chris Olah, who works at OpenAI. The debate idea comes from Geoffrey Irving, who’s now at DeepMind, and the amplification comes from Paul Christiano, who’s at OpenAI.

Lucas Perry: Yeah, so for sure, the best place to review these is by reading your post. And again, the post is “An overview of 11 proposals for building safe advanced AI” by Evan Hubinger and that’s on the AI Alignment Forum.

Evan Hubinger: That’s right. I should also mention that a lot of the stuff that I talked about in this podcast is coming from the Risks from Learned Optimization in Advanced Machine Learning Systems paper.

Lucas Perry: All right. Wrapping up here, I’m interested in ending on a broader note. I’m just curious to know if you have concluding thoughts about AI alignment, how optimistic are you that humanity will succeed in building aligned AI systems? Do you have a public timeline that you’re willing to share about AGI? How are you feeling about the existential prospects of earth-originating life?

Evan Hubinger: That’s a big question. So I tend to be on the pessimistic side. My current view looking out on the field of AI and the field of AI safety, I think there’s a lot of really challenging, difficult problems that we are at least not currently equipped to solve. And it seems quite likely that we won’t be equipped to solve by the time we need to solve them. I tend to think that the prospects for humanity aren’t looking great right now, but I nevertheless have a very sort of optimistic disposition, we’re going to do the best that we can. We’re going to try to solve these problems as effectively as we possibly can and we’re going to work on it and hopefully we’ll be able to make it happen.

In terms of timelines, it’s such a complex question. I don’t know if I’m willing to commit to some timeline publicly. I think that it’s just one of those things that is so uncertain. It’s just so important for us to think about what we can do across different possible timelines and be focusing on things which are generally effective regardless of how it turns out, because I think we’re really just quite uncertain. It could be as soon as five years or as long away as 50 years or 70 years, we really don’t know.

I don’t know if we have great track records of prediction in this setting. Regardless of when AI comes, we need to be working to solve these problems and to get more information on these problems, to get to the point we understand them and can address them because when it does get to the point where we’re able to build these really powerful systems, we need to be ready.

Lucas Perry: So you do take very short timelines, like say 5 to 10 to 15 years very seriously.

Evan Hubinger: I do take very short timelines very seriously. I think that if you look at the field of AI right now, there are these massive organizations, OpenAI and DeepMind that are dedicated to the goal of producing AGI. They’re putting huge amounts of research effort into it. And I think it’s incorrect to just assume that they’re going to fail. I think that we have to consider the possibility that they succeed and that they do so quite soon. A lot of the top people at these organizations have very short timelines, and so I think that it’s important to take that claim seriously and to think about what happens if it’s true.

I wouldn’t bet on it. There’s a lot of analysis that seems to indicate that at the very least, we’re going to need more compute than we have in that sort of a timeframe, but timeline prediction tasks are so difficult that it’s important to consider all of these different possibilities. I think that, yes, I take the short timelines very seriously, but it’s not the primary scenario. I think that I also take long timeline scenarios quite seriously.

Lucas Perry: Would you consider DeepMind and OpenAI to be explicitly trying to create AGI? OpenAI, yes, right?

Evan Hubinger: Yeah. OpenAI, it’s just part of the mission statement. DeepMind, some of the top people at DeepMind have talked about this, but it’s not something that you would find on the website the way you would with OpenAI. If you look at historically some of the things that Shane Legg and Demis Hassabis have said, a lot of it is about AGI.

Lucas Perry: Yeah. So in terms of these being the leaders with just massive budgets and person power, how do you see the quality and degree of alignment and beneficial AI thinking and mindset within these organizations? Because there seems to be a big distinction between the AI alignment crowd and the mainstream machine learning crowd. A lot of the mainstream ML community hasn’t been exposed to many of the arguments or thinking within the safety and alignment crowd. Stuart Russell has been trying hard to shift away from the standard model and incorporate a lot of these new alignment considerations. So yeah. What do you think?

Evan Hubinger: I think this is a problem that is getting a lot better. Like you were mentioning, Stuart Russell has been really great on this. CHAI has been very effective at trying to really get this message of, we’re building AI, we should put some effort into making sure we’re building safe AI. I think this is working. If you look at a lot of the major ML conferences recently, I think basically all of them had workshops on beneficial AI. DeepMind has a safety team with lots of really good people. OpenAI has a safety team with lots of really good people.

I think that the standard story of, oh, AI safety is just this thing that these people who aren’t involved in machine learning think about it’s something which really in the current world has become much more integrated with machine learning and is becoming more mainstream. But it’s definitely still a process, and it’s the process of like Stuart Russell says that the field of AI has been very focused on the sort of standard model and trying to move people away from that and think about some of the consequences of it takes time and it takes some sort of evolution of a field, but it is happening. I think we’re moving in a good direction.

Lucas Perry: All right, well, Evan, I’ve really enjoyed this. I appreciate you explaining all of this and taking the time to unpack a lot of this machine learning language and concepts to make it digestible. Is there anything else here that you’d like to wrap up on or any concluding thoughts?

Evan Hubinger: If you want more detailed information on all of the things that I’ve talked about, the full analysis of inner alignment and outer alignment is in Risks from Learned Optimization in Advanced Machine Learning Systems by me, as well as many of my co-authors, as well as “an overview of 11 proposals” post, which you can find on the AI Alignment Forum. I think both of those are resources, which I would recommend checking out for understanding more about what I talked about in this podcast.

Lucas Perry: Do you have any social media or a website or anywhere else for us to point towards?

Evan Hubinger: Yeah, so you can find me on all the different sorts of social media platforms. I’m fairly active on GitHub. I do a bunch of open source development. You can find me on LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, all those various different platforms. I’m fairly Google-able. It’s nice to have a fairly unique last name. So if you Google me, you should find all of this information.

One other thing, which I should mention specifically, everything that I do is all public. All of my writing is public. I try to publish all of my work and I do so on the AI Alignment Forum. So the AI Alignment Forum is a really, really great resource because it’s a collection of writing by all of these different AI safety authors. It’s open to anybody who’s a current AI safety researcher, and you can find me on the AI Alignment Forum as evhub, I’m E-V-H-U-B on the AI Alignment Forum.

Lucas Perry: All right, Evan, thanks so much for coming on today, and it’s been quite enjoyable. This has probably been one of the more fun AI alignment podcasts that I’ve had in a while. So thanks a bunch and I appreciate it.

Evan Hubinger: Absolutely. That’s super great to hear. I’m glad that you enjoyed it. Hopefully everybody else does as well.

End of recorded material

Steven Pinker and Stuart Russell on the Foundations, Benefits, and Possible Existential Threat of AI

 Topics discussed in this episode include:

  • The historical and intellectual foundations of AI 
  • How AI systems achieve or do not achieve intelligence in the same way as the human mind
  • The rise of AI and what it signifies 
  • The benefits and risks of AI in both the short and long term 
  • Whether superintelligent AI will pose an existential risk to humanity

You can take a survey about the podcast here

Submit a nominee for the Future of Life Award here

 

Timestamps: 

0:00 Intro 

4:30 The historical and intellectual foundations of AI 

11:11 Moving beyond dualism 

13:16 Regarding the objectives of an agent as fixed 

17:20 The distinction between artificial intelligence and deep learning 

22:00 How AI systems achieve or do not achieve intelligence in the same way as the human mind

49:46 What changes to human society does the rise of AI signal? 

54:57 What are the benefits and risks of AI? 

01:09:38 Do superintelligent AI systems pose an existential threat to humanity? 

01:51:30 Where to find and follow Steve and Stuart

 

Works referenced: 

Steven Pinker’s website and his Twitter

Stuart Russell’s new book, Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control

 

We hope that you will continue to join in the conversations by following us or subscribing to our podcasts on Youtube, Spotify, SoundCloud, iTunes, Google Play, StitcheriHeartRadio, or your preferred podcast site/application. You can find all the AI Alignment Podcasts here.

You can listen to the podcast above or read the transcript below. 

Note: The following transcript has been edited for style and clarity.

 

Lucas Perry: Welcome to the AI Alignment Podcast. I’m Lucas Perry. Today, we have a conversation with Steven Pinker and Stuart Russell. This episode explores the historical and intellectual foundations of AI, how AI systems achieve or do not achieve intelligence in the same way as the human mind, the benefits and risks of AI over the short and long-term, and finally whether superintelligent AI poses an existential risk to humanity. If you’re not currently following this podcast series, you can join us by subscribing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Soundcloud, or on whatever your favorite podcasting app is by searching for “Future of Life.” Our last episode was with Sam Harris on global priorities. If that sounds interesting to you, you can find that conversation wherever you might be following us. 

I’d also like to echo two announcements for the final time. So, if you’ve been tuned into the podcast recently, you can skip ahead just a bit. The first is that there is an ongoing survey for this podcast where you can give me feedback and voice your opinion about content. This goes a long way for helping me to make the podcast valuable for everyone. This survey should only come out once a year. So, this is a final call for thoughts and feedback if you’d like to voice anything. You can find a link for the survey about this podcast in the description of wherever you might be listening. 

The second announcement is that at the Future of Life Institute, we are in the midst of our search for the 2020 winner of the Future of Life Award. The Future of Life Award is a $50,000 prize that we give out to an individual who, without having received much recognition at the time of their actions, has helped to make today dramatically better than it may have been otherwise. The first two recipients of the Future of Life Award were Vasili Arkhipov and Stanislav Petrov, two heroes of the nuclear age. Both took actions at great personal risk to possibly prevent an all-out nuclear war. The third recipient was Dr. Matthew Meselson, who spearheaded the international ban on bioweapons. Right now, we’re not sure who to give the 2020 Future of Life Award to. That’s where you come in. If you know of an unsung hero who has helped to avoid global catastrophic disaster, or who has done incredible work to ensure a beneficial future of life, please head over to the Future of Life Award page and submit a candidate for consideration. The link for that page is on the page for this podcast or in the description of wherever you might be listening. If your candidate is chosen, you will receive $3,000 as a token of our appreciation. We’re also incentivizing the search via MIT’s successful red balloon strategy, where the first to nominate the winner gets $3,000 as mentioned, but there are also tiered pay outs where the first to invite the nomination winner gets $1,500, whoever first invited them gets $750, whoever first invited them $375, and so on. You can find details about that on the Future of Life Award page. Link in the description. 

Steven Pinker is a Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University. He conducts research on visual cognition, psycholinguistics, and social relations. He has taught at Stanford and MIT and is the author of ten books: The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, The Better Angels of Our Nature, The Sense of Style, and Enlightenment Now: The case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. 

Stuart Russell is a Professor of Computer Science and holder of the Smith-Zadeh chair in engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. He has served as the vice chair of the World Economic Forum’s Council on AI and Robotics and as an advisor to the United Nations on arms control. He is an Andrew Carnegie Fellow as well as a fellow of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, the Association for Computing Machinery and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

He is the author with Peter Norvig of the definitive and universally acclaimed textbook on AI, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. He is also the author of Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control. 

And with that, here’s our conversation with Steven Pinker and Stuart Russell. 

So let’s get started here then. What are the historical and intellectual foundations upon which the ongoing AI revolution is built?

Steven Pinker: I would locate them in the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment, when Thomas Hobbes said, “Reasoning is but reckoning,” reckoning in the old-fashioned sense of “calculation” or “computation.” A century later, the two major style of AI today were laid out: The neural network, or massively parallel interconnected system that is trained with examples and generalizes by similarity, and the symbol-crunching, propositional, “Good Old-Fashioned AI.” Both of those had adumbrations during the Enlightenment.  David Hume, in the empiricist or associationist tradition, said there are only three principles of connection among ideas, contiguity in time or place, resemblance, and cause and effect. On the other side, you have Leibniz, who thought of cognition as the grinding of wheels and gears and what we would now call the manipulation of symbols. Of course the actual progress began in the 20th century with the ideas of Turing and Shannon and Weaver and Norbert Wiener. The rest is the history that Stuart writes about in his textbook and his recent book.

Stuart Russell: I think I would like to add in a little bit of ancient history as well, just because I think Aristotle not only thought a lot about how human thinking was organized and how it could be correct or incorrect and how we could make rational decisions, he very clearly describes a backward regression goal planner in one of his pieces, and his work was incredibly influential. One of the things he said is we deliberate about means and not about ends. I think he says, “A doctor does not choose whether to heal,” and so on. And you might disagree with that, but I think that that’s been a pretty influential thread in Western thinking for the last two millennia or more. That we kind of take objectives as given and the purpose of intelligence is to act in ways that achieve your objectives.

That idea got refined gradually. So Aristotle talked mainly about goals and logically provable sequences of actions that would achieve those goals. And then in the 17th and 18th centuries, I want to give a shout out to the French and the Swiss, so Pascal and Fermat and Arnauld and Bernoulli brought in ideas of rational decision making under uncertainty and the weighing of probabilities and the concept of utility that Bernoulli introduced. So that generalized Aristotle’s idea, but it didn’t change the fundamental principle that they took the objectives, the utilities, as given. Just intrinsic properties of a human being in a given moment.

In AI, we sort of went through the same historical development, except that we did the logic stuff for the first 30 years or so, roughly, and then we did the probability and decision theory stuff for the next 30 years. I think we’re in a terrible state now, because the vast majority of the deep learning community, when you read their papers, nothing is cited before 2012. Occasionally, from time to time, they’ll say things like, “For this problem, the learning algorithms that we have are probably inadequate, and in future I think we should direct some of our research towards something that we might call reasoning or knowledge,” as if no one had ever thought of those things before and they were the first person in history to ever have the idea that reasoning might be necessary for intelligence.

Steven Pinker: Yes.

Stuart Russell: I find this quite frustrating and particularly frustrating when students want to actually just bypass the AI course altogether and go straight to the deep learning course, because they just don’t think AI is necessary anymore.

Steven Pinker: Indeed, and also galling to me. In the late ’80s and ’90s I was involved in a debate over the applicability of the predecessors of deep learning models, then called multi-layer perceptrons, artificial neural networks, connectionist networks, and Parallel Distributed Processing networks. Gary Marcus and Alan Prince and Michael Ullman and other collaborators I pointed out the limitations of trying to achieve intelligence–even for simple linguistic processes like forming the plural of a noun or a past tense of a verb–if the only tool you had available was the ability to associate features with features, without any symbol processing. That debate went on for a couple of decades and then petered out. But then one of the prime tools in the neural network community, multilayer networks trained by error back-propagation,  were revived in 2012. Indeed there is an amnesia for the issues in that debate, which Gary Marcus has revived for a modern era.

It would be interesting to trace the truly radical idea behind artificial intelligence: not just that there are rules or algorithms, whether they are from logic or probability theory, that an intelligent agent can use, the way a human pulls out a smartphone. But the idea that there is nothing but rules or algorithms, and that’s what an intelligent agent consists of: that is, no ghost to the machine, no agent separate from the mechanism. And there, I’m not sure whether Aristotle actually exorcised the ghost in the machine. I think he did have a notion of a soul. The idea that it’s rules all the way down,  that intelligence is just a mechanism, probably has shallow roots. Although Hobbes probably could claim credit for it, and perhaps Hume as well.

Lucas Perry: That’s an excellent point, Steve, it seems like Abrahamic religions have kind of given rise in part to this belief, or maybe an expression of that belief, the kind of mind-body dualism, the ghost in the machine where the mind seems to be a nonphysical thing. So it seems like intelligence has had to go the same road of “life.” There used to be “elan vital” or some other spooky presupposed mechanism for giving rise to life. And so similarly with intelligence, it seems like we’ve had to move from thinking that there was a ghost in the machine that made the things work to there being rules all the way down. If you guys have anything else to add to that, I think that’d be interesting.

My other two reactions to what has been said so far are that this point about computer science taking the goal as given, I think is important and interesting, and maybe we could expand upon that a little bit. Then there’s also, Stuart mentioned the difference between AI and deep learning and that students want to skip the AI and just get straight to the deep learning. That seemed a little bit confusing to me.

Steven Pinker: Let me address the first part and I’ll turn it over to Stuart for the second. The notion of dualism–that there is a mechanism, but sitting on top of it is an immaterial agent or self or soul or I–is enshrined in the Abrahamic religions and in other religions, but it has deep intuitive roots. We are all intuitively dualists (Paul Bloom has made this argument in his book Descartes’ Baby.) Fortunately, when we deal with each other in everyday life we don’t treat each other like robots or wind-up dolls, but we assume that there is an inner life that is much like ours, and we make sense of people’s behavior in terms of their beliefs and desires, which we don’t conceptualize as neural circuitry transforming patterns. We think there’s a locus of consciousness, which is easy to think of as separate from the flesh that we’re made of, especially since–and this is a point made by the 19th century British anthropologist Edward Tylor–that there’s actually a lot of empirical “evidence” that supports dualism in our everyday life.  Like dreaming.

When you dream, you know your body is in bed the whole time, but there’s some part of you that’s up and about in the world. When you see your reflection in a mirror or in still water, there is an animated essence that seems to have parted company with your body. When you’re in a trance from a drug or a fever and have an out-of-body experience, it seems  that we and our bodies are not the same thing. And with death, one moment a person is walking around, the next moment the body is lifeless. It’s natural to think that it’s lost some invisible ingredient that had animated it while it was alive.

Today we know that this is just the activity of the brain, but in terms of the experience available to a person, dualism seems perfectly plausible. It’s one of the great achievements of neuroscience, on the one hand,  to show that a brain is capable of supporting problem solving and perception and decision making, and of the computational sciences, on the other, for showing that intelligence can be understood in terms of information and computation, and that goals (like the Aristotelian final cause) can be understood in terms of control and cybernetics and feedback.

Stuart Russell: On the point that in computer science, we regard the objectives as fixed, it’s much broader than just computer science. If you look at Von Neumann — Morgenstern and their characterizations of rationality, nowhere do they talk about what is the process by which the agent might rationally come by its preferences. The agent is always assumed a priori to come with the preferences built in, and the only constraint is that those preferences be self-consistent so that you can’t be driven around circles of intransitive preferences where you simply cough up money to go round and round the same circle.

The same thing I think is true in control theory, where the objective is the cost function, and you design a controller that minimizes the expected cost function, which might be a square of the distance from the desired trajectory or whatever it might be. Same in statistics, where let’s just assume that there’s a loss function. There’s no discussion in statistics of what the loss function should be or how the loss function might change or anything like that.

So this is something that pervades many of the technological underpinnings of the 20th century. As far as I can tell, to some extent in developmental psychology, but I think in moral philosophy, people really take seriously the question of what goal should we have? Is it moral for an agent to have such and such as its objective, and how could we, for example, teach an agent to have different objectives? And that gets you into some very unchartered philosophical waters about what is a rational process that would lead an agent to have different objectives at the end than it did at the beginning, given that if it has different objectives at the end, then it can only expect that it won’t be achieving the objectives that it has at the beginning. So why would it embark on a process that’s going to result in failure to achieve the objectives that it currently has?

So that’s sort of a philosophical puzzle, but it’s a real issue because in fact human beings do change. We’re not born with the preferences that we have as adults, and so there is a notion of plasticity that absolutely has to be understood if we’re to get this right.

Steven Pinker: Indeed, and I suspect we’ll return to the point later when we talk about potential risks of advanced artificial intelligence. The issue is whether a system having intelligence implies that the system would have certain goals, and probably Stuart and I agree the answer is no, at least not by definition. Precisely because what you want and how to get what you want are two logically independent questions. Hume famously said that reason must be that the slave of the passions, by which he didn’t mean that we should just surrender to our impulses and do whatever feels good. What he meant was that reason itself can’t specify the goals that it tries to bring about. Those are exogenous. And indeed, von Neumann and Morgenstern are often misunderstood as saying that we must be ruthlessly, egotistical self interested maximizers. Whereas the goal that is programmed into us — say by evolution or by culture — could include other people’s happiness as part of our utility function. That is a question that merely making our choices consistent is silent on.

 So the ability to reason doesn’t by itself give you moral goals, including taking into account the interests of others. That having been said, there is a long tradition in moral philosophy which shows  how it doesn’t take much to go from one to the other. Because as soon as we care about persuading others, as soon as our interests depend on how others treat us, then we can’t get away with saying “only my interests count and yours don’t because I am me and you’re not,” because there is no logical difference between “me” and “you.” So we’re forced to a kind of impartiality, wherein whatever I insist on for me I’ve got to grant to you, a kind of Golden Rule or Categorical Imperative that makes our interests interchangeable as soon as we’re in discourse with one another.

This is all to acknowledge Stuart’s point, but to take it a few steps further in how it deals with the question of what our goals ought to be.

Stuart Russell: The other point you raised Lucas was on being confused by my distinction between AI and deep learning.

Lucas Perry: That’s right.

Stuart Russell: I think you’re pointing to a confusion that exists in the public mind, in the media and even in parts of the AI community. AI has always included machine learning as a subdiscipline, all the way back to Turing’s 1950 paper, where he speculates, in fact, that might be a good way to build AI would be just start with a child program and train it to be an adult intelligent machine. But there are many other sub-fields of AI; knowledge representation, reasoning, planning, decision making under uncertainty, problem solving, perception. Machine learning is relevant to all of these because they all involve processes that can be improved through experience. So that’s what we mean by machine learning: simply the improvement of performance through experience; and deep learning is a technology that helps with that process.

It by itself as far as we can tell, doesn’t have what is necessary to produce general intelligence. Just to pick one example, the idea that human beings know things seems so self-evident that we hardly need to argue about it. But deep learning systems in a real sense don’t know things. They can’t usefully acquire knowledge by reading a book and then go out and use that to design a radio telescope, which human beings arguably can. So it seems inevitable that if we’re going to make progress, I mean, sure we take the advances that deep learning has offered. Effectively, what we’ve discovered with deep learning is that you can train more complicated circuits than we previously would have guessed possible using various kinds of stochastic gradient descent, and other tricks.

I think it’s true to say that most people would not have expected that you could build a thousand layer network that was 20,000 units wide. So it’s got 20 million circuit elements and simply put a signal in one end and some data in the other and expect that you’re going to be able to train those 20 million elements to represent the complicated function that you’re trying to get it to learn. So that was a big surprise, and that capability is opening up all kinds of new frontiers: in vision, in speech recognition, language, machine translation, and physical control in robots among other things. It’s a wonderful set of advances, but it’s not the entire solution. Any more than group theory is the entire solution to mathematics. There’s lots of other branches of mathematics that are exciting and interesting and important and you couldn’t function without them. The same is true for AI.

So I think that we’re probably going to see even without further major conceptual advances, another decade of progress in achieving greater understanding of why deep learning works and how to do it better, and all the various applications that we can create using it. But I think if we don’t go back and then try to reintegrate all the other ideas of AI, we’re going to hit a wall. And so I think the sooner we lose our obsession with this new shiny thing, the better.

Steven Pinker: I couldn’t agree more. Indeed, in some ways we have already hit the wall. Any user of Siri or Cortana or a question-answering system has been frustrated by the way they just make associations to individual words and have a shallow understanding of the syntax of the sentence. If you ask Google or Siri, “Can you show me digital music players without a camera?” It’ll give you a long list of music players with discussions of their cameras, failing to understand the syntax of “X without Y.” Or, “What are some fast food restaurants nearby that are not McDonald’s?”  and you get a list of nearby McDonald’s.

It’s not hard to bump into the limitations of systems that for all their sophistication are being trained on associations among local elements, and can–I agree, surprisingly–learn higher-order combinations of those elements. But despite the name “deep learning,” they are shallow in the sense that they don’t build up a knowledge base of what are the objects, and who did what to whom, which they can access through various routes.

Stuart Russell: Yeah. My favorite example, I’m not sure if it’s apocryphal, is you say to Siri, “Call me an ambulance,” and Siri says, “Okay. From now on I’ll call you Ann Ambulance.”

Steven Pinker: In Marx Brothers movie, there’s the sequence, “Call me a taxi.” “Okay. You’re a taxi.” I don’t know if the AI story is an urban legend based on the Marx Brothers movie or whether life is imitating art.

Lucas Perry: Steven, I really appreciate it and liked that point about dualism and intelligence. I think it points in really interesting directions around identity in the self, which we don’t have time to get into here. But I did appreciate that.

So moving on ahead here, to what extent do you both see AI systems as achieving intelligence in the same way or not as the human mind does? What kinds of similarities are there or differences?

Stuart Russell: This is a really interesting question and we could spend the whole two hours just talking about this. So by artificial intelligence, I’m going to take it that we mean not deep learning, but the full range of techniques that AI researchers have developed over the years.

So some of them– for example, logical reasoning were– developed going back to Aristotle and other Greek philosophers who developed formal logic to model human thinking. So it’s not surprising that when we build programs that do logical reasoning, we are in some sense capturing one aspect of human reasoning capability. Then in the ’80s, as I mentioned, AI developed reasoning under uncertainty, and then later on refining that with notions of causality as well, particularly in the work of Judea Pearl. The differences are really because AI and cognitive science separated probably sometime in the ’60s. I think before that there wasn’t really a clear distinction between whether you were doing AI or whether you were doing cognitive science. It was very much the thought that if you could get a program to do anything that we think of as requiring intelligence with a human, then you were in some sense exhibiting a possible theory of how the human does it, or even you would make introspective claims and say, “Look, I’ve now shown that this theory of intelligence really works.”

But fairly soon people said, “Look, this is not really scientific. If you want to make a claim about how the human mind does something, you have to base it on real psychological experimentation with human subjects.” And that’s distinct from the engineering goal of AI, which is simply to produce programs that demonstrate certain capabilities. So for most of the last 50, 60 years, these two fields have grown further and further apart. I think now partly because of deep learning and partly because of other work, for example in probabilistic programming, we can start to do things that humans do that we couldn’t do before. So it becomes interesting again, to ask, well, are humans really somewhat Bayesian and are they doing these kinds of Bayesian symbolic probabilistic program learning that, for example, Josh Tenenbaum was proposing or are they doing something else? For example, Geoff Hinton is pretty adamant that as he puts it, symbols are the luminiferous aether of AI by which he means that they’re simply something that we imagined and they have no physical reality whatsoever in the human mind.

I find this a little hard to believe, and you have to wonder if symbols don’t exist, why are almost all deep learning applications aimed at recognizing the symbolic category to which an object belongs, and I haven’t heard an answer yet from the deep learning community about why that is. But it’s also clear that AI systems are doing things that have no resemblance to human cognition. When you look at what AlphaGo is actually doing, part of it is that sort of perception-like ability to look at a position and get a sense, to use an anthropomorphic term, of its potential for winning for white or for black. And perhaps that part is human-like, and actually it’s incredibly good. It’s probably better at recognizing the potential position directly with no deliberation whatsoever than a human is.

But the other part of what AlphaGo does is completely non-human. It’s considering sequences of moves from the current state that run all the way to the end of the game. So part of it is searching in a tree which could go 40 or 50 or possibly more moves into the future. Then from the end of the tree, it then plays a random game all the way to the end and sees who wins that game. And this is nothing like what human beings do. When humans are reasoning about a game like Go or Chess, first of all, we are thinking about it at multiple levels of abstraction. So we’re thinking about the liveness of a particular group, we’re thinking about control of a particular region of territory on the board. We’re thinking, “Well, if I give up control of this territory, then I can trade it for capturing his group over there.”

So this kind of reasoning simply doesn’t happen in AlphaGo at all. We reason back from goals. In chess you say, “Perhaps I could trap his queen. Let me see if I can come up with a move that blocks his exit for the queen.” So we reason backwards from some goals and no chess program and no Go program does that kind of reasoning. The reason humans do this is because the world is incredibly complicated and in different circumstances, different kinds of cognitive processing are efficient and effective in producing good decisions quickly. And that’s the real issue for human intelligence, right?

If we didn’t have to worry about computation, then we would just set up the giant unknown, partially observable, Markov decision process of the universe, solve it and then we would take the first action in the virtually infinite strategy tree that solves that POMDP. Then we would observe the next percept, we would update all our beliefs about the universe and we would resolve the universe and that’s how we would proceed. We would have to do that sort of roughly every millisecond to control the muscles in our body, but we don’t do anything like that. All of the different kinds of mental capabilities that we have are deployed in this amazingly fluid way to get us through the complexity of the real world. We are so far away in AI from understanding how to do that, that when I see people say, “We’re just going to scale up our deep learning systems by another three orders of magnitude and we’ll be more intelligent than humans,” I just smile.

Steven Pinker: Yeah. I’d like to complement some of those observations. It is true that in the early days of artificial intelligence and cognitive psychology, they were driven by some of the same players. Herb Simon and Allen Newell can be credited as among the founders of AI and the founders of cognitive psychology. Likewise, Marvin Minsky and John McCarthy. When I was an undergraduate, I caught the tail end of what was called the cognitive revolution. It was exhilarating after the dominance of psychology by behaviorism, which forbade any talk of mentalistic concepts. You weren’t allowed to talk about memories or plans or goals or ideas or rules, because they were considered to be unobservable and thus unscientific. Then the concept of computation domesticated those mentalist terms and opened up a huge space of hypotheses. What are the rules by which we understand and formulate sentences?, a project that Noam Chomsky initiated. How can we model human knowledge as a semantic network?, a project that Minsky and Alan Collins and Ross Quillian and others developed. How do we make sense of foresight and planning and problem solving, which Newell and Simon pioneered?

There was a lot of back and forth between AI and cognitive science when they were first exposed to the very idea that intelligence could be understood in mechanistic terms, and there was a flow of hypotheses from computer science that psychologists then tested as possible models. Ideas that you couldn’t even frame, you couldn’t even articulate before there was the language of computation, such as What is the capacity of human short term memory? or What are the search algorithms by which we explore a problem space? These were unintelligible in the era of behaviorism.

All this caught the attention of philosophers like Hilary Putnam, and later Dan Dennett, who noted that the ideas from the hybrid of cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence were addressing deep questions about what mental entities consist of, namely information processing states. The back-and-forth spilled into the ’70s when I was a graduate student, and even the ’80s when centers for cognitive science were funded by the Sloan Foundation. There was also a lot of openness in the companies that hired artificial intelligence researchers: AT&T Bell Labs, which was a scientific powerhouse before the breakup of AT&T. Bolt Beranek and Newman in Cambridge, which eventually became part of Verizon. I would go there as a grad student to hear talks on artificial intelligence. I don’t know if this is apocryphal history, but Xerox Palo Alto Research Centers, where I was a consultant, was so open that, according to legend, Steve Jobs walked in and saw the first computer with a graphic user interface and a mouse and windows and icons, stole the ideas, and went on to build the Lisa and then the Macintosh. Xerox was out on their own invention, and companies got proprietary . Many of the AI researchers in companies no longer publish  in peer-reviewed journals in psychology the way they used to, and the two cultures drifted apart. 

Since hypotheses from computer science and artificial intelligence are just hypotheses, there is the question of whether the best engineering solution to a problem is the one that the brain uses. There’s the obvious objection that the hardware is radically different: the brain is massively parallel and noisy and stochastic; computers are serial and deterministic. That led in part to the backlash in the ’80s when perceptrons and artificial neural networks were revived. There was skepticism about the more symbolic approaches to artificial intelligence, which has been revived now in the deep learning era.

to get back to the question, what are ways in which human minds differ from AI systems? It depends on the AI system assessed, as Stuart pointed out. Both of us would agree that the easy equation of deep learning networks with human intelligence is unwarranted, that a lot of the walls that deep learning is hitting come about because, despite the noisy parallel elements the brain is made of, we do emulate a kind of symbol processing architecture, where we can be taught explicit propositions, and human intelligence does make use of these symbols in addition to massively parallel associative networks.

I can’t help but mention a historical irony.  I’ve known Geoff Hinton since we were both post-docs. Hinton himself, early in his career, provided a refutation of the very claim of his that Stuart cited, that symbols are like luminiferous aether, a mythical entity. Geoff and I have noted to each other that we’ve switched sides in the debate on the nature of cognition. There was a debate in the 1970s on the format of mental imagery. Geoff and I were on opposite sides, but he was the symbolic proposition guy and I was the analog parallel network guy.  

Hinton showed that our understanding of an  object depends on the symbolic format in which we mentally represent it. Take something as simple as a cube, he said. Imagine a cube poised on one of its vertices, with the diagonally opposite vertex aligned above it. If you ask people, “Point to all the other vertices,” they are stymied. Their imagery fails, and they often leave out a couple of vertices. But if, instead of describing it to them as a cube tilted on its diagonal axis, you describe it as two tilted diamonds, one above the other, or as two tripods joined by a zig-zag ring, they “see” the correct answer. Even visualizing an object depends critically on how people mentally describe it to themselves with symbols. This is an argument for symbolic representations that Geoff Hinton made in 1979, and with his recent remarks about symbols he seems to have forgotten his own powerful example.

Stuart Russell: I think another area where deep learning is clearly not capturing the human capacity for learning, is just in the efficiency of learning. I remember in the mid ’80s going to some classes in psychology at Stanford, and there were people doing machine learning then and they were very proud of their results, and somebody asked Gordon Bower, “how many examples do humans need to learn this kind of thing?” And Gordon said “one Sometimes two, usually one”, and this is genuinely true, right? If you look for a picture book that has one to two million pictures of giraffes to teach children what a giraffe is, you won’t find one. Picture books that tell children what giraffes are have one picture of a giraffe, one picture of an elephant, and the child gets it immediately, even though it’s a very crude cartoonish drawing, of a giraffe or an elephant, they never have a problem recognizing giraffes and elephants for the rest of their lives.

Deep learning systems are needing, even for these relatively simple concepts, thousands, tens of thousands, millions of examples, and the idea within deep learning seems to be that well, the way we’re going to scale up to more complicated things like learning how to write an email to ask for a job, is that we’ll just have billions or trillions of examples, and then we’ll be able to learn really, really complicated concepts. But of course the universe just doesn’t contain enough data for the machine to learn direct mappings from perceptual inputs or really actually perceptual input history. So imagine your entire video record of your life, and that feeds into the decision about what to do next, and you have to learn that mapping as a supervised learning problem. It’s not even funny how unfeasible that is. The longer the deep learning community persists in this, the worse the pain is going to be when their heads bang into the wall.

Steven Pinker: In many discussions of superintelligence inspired by the success of deep learning I’m puzzled as to what people could possibly mean. We’re sometimes asked to imagine an AI system that’s could solve the problem of Middle East peace or cure cancer. That implies that we would have to train it with 60 million other diseases and their cures, and it would extract the patterns and cure the new disease that we present it with. Needless to say, when it comes to solving global warming, or pandemics, or Middle Eastern peace, there aren’t going to be 60 million similar problems with their correct answers that could provide the training set for supervised learning.

Lucas Perry: So, human children and humans are generally capable of one shot learning, or you said we can learn via seeing one instance of a thing, whereas machine learning today is trained up via very, very large data sets. Can you explain what the actual perceptual difference is going on there? It seems for children, they see a giraffe and they can develop a bunch of higher order facts about the giraffe, like that it is tan, and has spots, and a long neck, and horns and other kinds of higher order things. Whereas machine learning systems may be doing something else. So could you explain that difference?

Stuart Russell: Yeah, I think you actually captured it pretty well. The human child is able to recognize the object, not as 20 million pixels, including–let’s not forget–all the pixels of the background. So many of these learning algorithms are actually learning to recognize the background, not the object at all. They’re really picking up on spurious regularities that happen in the way the images are being captured. But the human child immediately separates the figure from the background says, “okay, it’s the figure that’s being called a giraffe”, and recognizes the higher level properties; “okay, it’s a quadruped, relatively large” the most distinguishing characteristic, as you say, is the very long neck, plus the way its hide is colored. Probably most kids might not even notice the horns and I’m not even sure if all giraffes have the horns, or just the males or just the adults. I don’t know the answer to that.

So I wasn’t paying much attention to all those images. This carries over to many, many other situations, including in things like planning, where if we observe someone carrying out a successful behavior, that one example combined with our prior knowledge is typically enough for us to get the general idea of how to do that thing. And this prior knowledge is absolutely crucial. Just information-theoretically, you can’t learn from one example reliably, unless you bring to bear a great deal of prior knowledge. And this is completely absent in deep learning systems in two ways. One is they don’t have any prior knowledge. And two is some of the prior knowledge is specifically about the thing you’re trying to predict. So here, we’re trying to predict the category of an animal and we already have a great deal of prior knowledge about what it means to belong to a category of animals.

So for example, who owns you, is not an attribute that the child would need to know or care about. If you said, what kind of animal is this? And deep learning systems have no ability to include or exclude any input attribute on the basis of its relevance to what it’s trying to predict, because they know nothing about what it is you’re trying to predict. And if you think about it, that doesn’t make any sense, right? If I said, “okay, I want you to learn to predict predicate P1279A. Okay? And I’m going to give you loads and loads of examples.” And now you get a perfect predictor for ‘P1279A’, but you have absolutely no use for it, because P1279A doesn’t connect to anything else in your cognition. So you learned a completely useless predictor because you know nothing about the thing that you’re trying to predict.

So it seems like it’s broken in several really, really important ways, and I would say probably the absence of prior knowledge or any means to bring to bear prior knowledge on the learning process is the most crucial.

Steven Pinker: Indeed, this goes back to our conversation on how basic principles of intelligence that govern the design of intelligent systems provide hypotheses that can be tested within psychology. What Stuart has identified is ultimately the nature-nurture problem in cognition. Namely, what are the innate constraints that govern children’s first hypotheses as they try to make sense of the world? 

One famous answer is Chomsky’s universal grammar, which guides children as they acquire language. Another is the idea from my colleagues Susan Carey and Elizabeth Spelke, in different formulations, that children have a prior concept of a physical object whose parts move together, which persists over time, and which follows continuous spatiotemporal trajectories; and that they have a distinct  concept of an agent or mind, which is governed by beliefs and desires. Maybe, or maybe not, they come equipped with still other frameworks for concepts, like the concept of a living thing or the concept of an artifact, and these priors radically cut down the search space of hypotheses, so they don’t have to search at the level of pixels and all their logically possible weighted combinations. 

Of course, the challenge in the science is how you specify the innate constraints, the prior knowledge, so that they aren’t obviously too specific, given what we know about the plasticity of human cognition. The extreme example being the late philosopher Jerry Fodors’ suggestion that all concepts are innate, including “trombone” and “doorknob” and “carburetor.”

Stuart Russell: (Laughs)

Steven Pinker: Hard to swallow, but between that extreme and the deep learning architecture in which the only thing that’s innate are the pixels, the convolutional network that allows for translational invariance, and the network of connections, there’s an interesting middle ground. That defines the central research question in cognitive development.

Stuart Russell: I don’t think you have to believe in extensive innate structures in order to believe that prior knowledge is really, really important for learning. I would guess that some aspects of our cognition are innate, and one of them is probably that the world contains things, and that’s really important because if you just think about the brain as circuits, some circuit languages don’t have things as first class entities, whereas first order logical languages or programming languages do have things as first class entities and that’s a really important distinction.

Even if you believe that nothing is innate, the point is how does everything that you have perceived up to now affect your ability to learn the next thing? One argument is, everything you’ve perceived up to now, is simply data, and somehow magically, we have access to all our past perceptions, and then you’re just training a function from that whole lot to the next thing to do or how to interpret the next object.

That doesn’t make much sense. Presumably the experience you have from birth or even pre-birth onwards, is converted into something and one argument is that it’s just converted into something like knowledge, and then that knowledge is brought to bear on learning problems, for example, to even decide what are the relevant aspects of the input for predicting category membership of this thing?

And the other view would be that, in the deep learning community, they would say probably something like the accumulation of features. If you imagine a giant recurrent neural network: in the hidden layers of the recurrent neural network over years and years and years of perception, you’re building up internal representations, features, which then can perhaps simplify the learning of the next concept that you need to learn. And there’s probably some truth in that too.

And absolutely having a library of features that are generally useful for predicting and decision making and planning and our entire vocabulary, I think this is something that people often miss, our vocabulary, our language, is not just something we use to communicate with each other. It’s an enormous resource for simplifying the world in the right ways, to make the next thing we need to know, or the next thing we need to do, relatively easy. Right? So you imagine you decide at the age of 12, I want to understand the physical laws that control the universe.

The fact that we have in our vocabulary, something like doing a PhD, makes it much more feasible to figure out what your plan is going to be, to achieve this objective. If you didn’t have that, and if you didn’t have all the pieces of doing a PhD, like take a course, read a book, this library of words and action primitives, at all these levels of abstraction, is a resource without which you would be completely unable to formulate plans of any length or any likelihood of success. And this is another area where current AI systems, I would say generally, not just deep learning, we lack a real understanding of how to formulate these hierarchies and acquire this vocabulary and then how to deploy it in a seamless way so that we’re always managing to function successfully in the real world.

Lucas Perry: I’m basically just as confused about I guess, intelligence as anyone else. So the difference, it seems to me between the machine learning system and the child who one-shot-learns the giraffe is, that the child brings into this learning scenario, this knowledge that you guys were talking about, that they understand that the world is populated by things and that there are other minds and some other ideas about 3D objects and perception, but a core difference seems to be something like symbols and the ability to manipulate symbols is this right? Or is it wrong? And what are symbols and effective symbol manipulation made of?

Steven Pinker: Yes, and that is a limitation of the so-called deep learning systems, which are a subset of machine learning, which is a subset of artificial intelligence. It’s certainly not true that AI systems don’t manipulate symbols.  Indeed, that’s what classical AI systems trade in: manipulation of propositions, implementation of versions of logical inference or of cause-and-effect reasoning. Those can certainly be implemented in AI systems–it’s just gone out of fashion with the deep learning craze.

Lucas Perry: Well, they don’t learn those symbols, right? Like we give them the symbols and then they manipulate them.

Steven Pinker: The basic architecture of the system, almost by definition, can’t be learned;  you can’t learn something with nothing. There have got to be some elementary information processes, some formats of data representation, some basic ways of transforming one representation to another, that are hardwired into the architecture of the system. It’s an open empirical question, in the case of the human brain, whether it includes variables for objects and minds, or living things, or artifacts, or if those are scaffolded one on top of the other with experience. There’s nothing in principle that prevents AI systems from doing that;  many of them do, but at least for now they seem to have fallen out of fashion.

Stuart Russell: There is precedent for generating new symbols, both in the probabilistic programming literature and in the inductive logic programming literature. So predicate invention is a very important reason for doing inductive logic programming. But I agree with Steve, that it’s an open question as to whether the basic capacity to have a new symbol based representations in the brain is innate, or is it learned? There’s very anecdotal evidence about what happens to children who are not brought up among other human beings. I think those anecdotes suggest that they don’t become symbol-using in the same way. So it might be that the process of developing symbol-using capabilities in the brain is enormously aided by the fact that we grow up in the presence of symbol-using entities, namely our parents and family members and community. And of course that leads you to then a chicken and egg problem.

So you’d have to argue in that case that early humans, or pre-humans had much more rudimentary symbol-like capabilities: some animals have the ability to refer to different phenomena or objects with different signs, different kinds of sounds that some new world monkeys have, for example, for a snake and for puma, but they’re not able to do the full range of things that we do with symbols. You could argue that the symbol using capability developed over hundreds of thousands of years and the unaided human mind doesn’t come with it built in, but because we’re usually bathed in symbol-using activity around us, we are able to quickly pick it up. I don’t know what the truth is, but it seems very clear that this kind of capability, for example, gives you the ability to generalize so much faster than you can with circuits. So just to give a particular example of the rules of Go, we talked about earlier, the rules of Go apply the same rule at every time-step in the game.

And it’s the same rule at every square in the game, except around the edges, and if you have what we call first order capability, meaning you can have universal quantifiers or in programs, we think of these as loops, you can say very quickly for every square on the board, if you have a piece on there and it’s surrounded by the enemy, then it’s dead. That’s sort of a crude approximation to how things work and go, but it’s roughly right. In a circuit, you can’t say that because you don’t have the ability to say for every square. So you have to have a piece of circuit for each square. So you’ve got 361 copies of the rule in each of those copies has to be learned separately, and this is one of the things that we do with convolutional neural networks.

A convolutional neural network has the universal quantifier over the input space, built into it. So it’s a kind of cheating, and as far as we know, the brain doesn’t have that type of weight sharing. So the key aspect is not just the physical structure of the convolutional network, which has this repeating local receptive fields on each different part of the retina, so to speak, but that we also insist that weights for each of those local receptive fields are copied across all receptive fields in the retina. So there aren’t millions of separate weights that are trained, there’s only a few, sometimes even just a handful of weights that are trained and then the code makes sure that those are effectively copied across the entire retina. And the brain. I don’t think has any way to do that, so it’s doing something else to achieve this kind of rapid generalization.

Lucas Perry: All right. So now with all of this context and understanding about intelligence and its origins today in 2020, AI is beginning to proliferate and is occupying a lot of news cycles. What particular important changes to human society does the rise and proliferation of AI signal and how do you view it in relation to the agricultural and industrial revolutions?

Steven Pinker: I’m going to begin with a meta-answer, which is that we should keep in mind how spectacularly ignorant we are of the future even the relatively near future. Experts at superforecasting studied by Phil Tetlock, pretty much the best in the world, go down to about chance after about five years out. And we know, looking at predictions of the future from the past,  how ludicrous they can be, both in underpredicting technological changes and in overpredicting them. A 1993 book by Bill Gates called The Road Ahead  said virtually nothing about the internet! And there’s a sport of looking at science-fiction movies and spotting ludicrous anachronisms, such as the fact that in 2001: A Space Odyssey they were using typewriters. They had suspended animation and trips to Jupiter, but they hadn’t invented the word processor. To say nothing of the social changes they failed to predict, such as the fact that all of the women in the movie were secretaries and assistants.

So we should begin by acknowledging that it is extraordinarily difficult to predict the future. And there’s a systematic reason, namely that the future depends not just on technological developments, but also on people’s reaction to the developments, and on the  reactions to the reactions, and the reactions to the reactions to the reactions. There are seven and a half billion of us reacting, and we have to acknowledge that there’s a lot we’re going to get wrong. 

It’s safe to say that a lot of tasks that involve physical manipulation, like stocking shelves and driving trucks, are going to be automated, and societies will have to deal with the possibility of radical changes in employment, and Stuart talks about those in his book. We don’t know whether the job market will be flexible enough to create new jobs, always at the frontier of what machines can’t yet do, or whether there’ll be massive unemployment that will require economic adjustments, such as a universal basic income or government sponsored service. 

Less clear is the extent to which high-level decision making, like policy, diplomacy, or scientific hypothesis-testing,  will be replaced by AI. I think that’s impossible to predict.  Although, closer to the replacement of truck drivers by autonomous vehicles, AI as a useful tool, rather than as a replacement, for human intelligence will explode in science and business and technology and every walk of life.

Stuart Russell: I think all of those things are true. And I agree that our general record of forecasting has been pretty dismal. I am smiling as Steve was talking, because I was remembering Ray Kurzweil recently saying how proud he was that he had predicted the self driving car, I think it was in ’96 or ’92, something like that, and possibly wasn’t aware that the first self driving car was driving on the freeway in 1987, before he even thought to predict that such a thing might happen. If I had to say, in the next decade, if you said, roughly speaking, that what happened in the 2010s was primarily that visual perception became very crudely feasible for machines when it wasn’t before.

And that’s already having huge impact, including in self-driving cars, I would say that language understanding at least in a simplified sense will become possible in this decade. And I think it’ll be a combination of deep learning with probabilistic programming, with Bayesian and symbolic methods. That will open up enormous areas of activity to machines where they simply couldn’t go before, and some of that will be very straightforward, job replacement for call center workers. Most of what they do, I think could be automated by systems that are able to understand their conversations. The role of the smart speaker, the Alexa, or Cortana or Siri or whatever will radically change and will enable AI systems to actually understand your life to a much greater extent. One of the reasons that Siri and Cortana or Alexa are not very useful to me is because they just don’t understand anything about my life.

The “call me an ambulance” example illustrates that. If I got a text message saying “Johnny’s in the hospital with a broken arm”, well, if it doesn’t understand that Johnny is possibly my cat, or possibly my son, or possibly my great grandfather and does Johnny live nearby, or in my house, or on another continent, then it hasn’t the faintest idea of what to do. Or even whether I care. It’s only really through language understanding. I doubt that we’re going to be filling these things full of first order logic assertions that we will type into our AI system. So it’s only through language that it’s going to be able to acquire the knowledge that it needs to be a useful assistant to an individual or a corporation. So having that language capability will open up whole new areas for AI to be useful to individuals and also to take jobs from people. And I’m not able to predict what else we might be able to do when there are AI systems that understand language, but it has to have a huge impact.

Lucas Perry: Is there anything else that you guys would like to add in terms of where AI is at right now, where it’ll be in the near future and the benefits and risks it will pose?

Stuart Russell: I could point to a few things that are already happening. There’s a lot of discussion about the negative impacts on women and minorities from algorithms that inadvertently pick up on biases in society. So we saw the example of Amazon’s hiring algorithm that rejected any resume that had the word “woman’s” in it. And I think that’s serious, but I think the AI community we’re still not completely woke, and there’s a lot of consciousness raising that needs to happen. But I think technically that problem is manageable, and I think one interesting thing that’s occurring is that we’re starting to develop an understanding, not just of the machine learning algorithm, but of the socio-technical context in which that machine learning is embedded and modeling that social technical context allows you to predict whether the use of that algorithm will have negative feedback kinds of consequences, or it will be vulnerable to certain kinds of selection bias in the input data, and so on.

Deepfakes surveillance and manipulation, that’s another big area, and then something I’m very concerned about is the use of AI for autonomous weapons. This is another area where we fight against media stereotypes. So when the media talk about autonomous weapons, they invariably have a picture of a Terminator. Always. And I tell journalists, I’m not going to talk to you if you put a picture of a Terminator in the article. And they always say, well, I don’t have any control over that, that’s a different part of the newspaper, but it always happens anyway.

And the reason that’s a problem is because then everyone thinks, “Oh, well this is science fiction. We don’t have to worry about this because this is science fiction.” And you know, I’ve heard the Russian ambassador to the UN and Geneva say, well, why are we even discussing these things, because this is science fiction, it’s 20 or 30 years in the future? Oh, by the way, I have some of these weapons, if you’d like to buy them. The reality is that many militaries around the world are developing these, companies are selling them. There’s a Turkish arms company, STM, selling a device, which is basically the slaughterbot from the Slaughterbots movie. So it’s a small drone with onboard explosives and they advertise it as capable of tracking and autonomously attacking human beings based on video signatures and/or face recognition.

The Turkish government has announced that they’re going to be using those against the Kurds in Syria sometime this year. So we’ll see if it happens, but there’s no doubt that this is not science fiction, and it’s very real. And it’s going to create a new kind of weapon of mass destruction, because if it’s autonomous, it doesn’t need to be supervised. And if it doesn’t need to be supervised, then you can launch them by the million, and then you have something with the same effect as a nuclear weapon, but much cheaper, much easier to proliferate with much less collateral damage and all the rest of it.

Steven Pinker: I think in all of these discussions, it’s critical to not fall prey to a status-quo bias and compare the hypothetical problems of a future technology with an idealized present, ignoring the real problems with the present we take for granted. In the case of bias, we know that humans are horribly biased. It’s not just that we’re biased against particular genders and ethnic groups and sexual orientations. But inj general we make judgements that can easily be outperformed by even simple algorithms, like a linear regression formula. So we should remember that our benchmark in talking about the accuracies or inaccuracies of AI prediction algorithms has to be the human, and that’s often a pretty low bar. When it comes to bias, of course, a system that’s trained on a sample that’s unrepresentative is not a particularly intelligent system. And going back to the idea that we have to distinguish the goals we want to achieve from the intelligence that achieves them, if our goal is to overcome past inequities, then by definition we don’t want to make selections that simply replicate the statistical distribution of women and minorities in the past. Our goal is to rectify those inequities, and the problem in a system that replicates them is not that it’s not intelligent enough, but then we’ve given it the wrong goal.

When it comes to weapons, here too, we’ve got to compare the potential harm of intelligent weapons systems with the stupendous harm of dumb weapon systems. Aerial bombardment, artillery, automatic weapons, search-and- destroy missions, and tank battles have killed people by the millions. I think there’s been insufficient attention to how a battleground that used smarter weapons would compare to what we’ve tolerated for centuries simply because that’s what we have come to accept, though it’s being fantastically destructive. What ultimately we want to do is to make the use of any weapons less likely, and as I’ve written about, that has been the general trend in the last 75 years, fortunately.

Stuart Russell: Yeah, I think there is some truth in that. When I first got the email from Human Rights Watch, so they began a campaign, I think was back in 2013, to argue for a treaty banning autonomous weapons. Human Rights Watch came into existence because of the awful things that human soldiers do. And now they’re saying “No, no human soldiers are great, it’s the machines we need to worry about.” And I found that a little bit odd. To me, the argument about whether the weapons will inadvertently violate humans right in ways that human soldiers don’t, or sort of accidentally kill people in ways that we are getting better at avoiding, I don’t think that’s the issue. I think it’s specifically the weapon of mass destruction property that autonomous weapons have that for example machine guns don’t.

There’s a hundred million or more Kalashnikov rifles in private hands in the world. If all those weapons got up one morning by themselves and started shooting anyone they could see, that would be a big chunk of the human race gone, but they don’t do that. Each of them has to be carried by a person. And if you want to put a million of them into the field, you need another 10 million people to feed and train those million soldiers, and to transport them, and protect them, and all that stuff. And that’s why we haven’t seen very large scale death from all those hundred million Kalashnikovs.

Even carpet-bombing, which I think nowadays would be regarded as indiscriminate and therefore a violation of international law. And I think even during the Second World War, people argued that “No, you can’t go and bomb cities.” But once the Germans started to do it, then there was escalating rounds of retaliation and people lost all sense of what was a civilized and what was an uncivilized act of war. But even The Blitz against Great Britain, as far as I know killed only between 50 and 60,000 people, even though it hit dozens and dozens of cities. But literally one truckload of autonomous weapons can kill a million people.

An interesting fact about World War II is that for every person who died, between 1,000 and 10,000 bullets were fired. So just killing people with bullets on average in World War II cost you, let’s take a geometric mean 3,000 bullets, which is actually about a thousand dollars at current prices, but you could build a lethal autonomous weapon for a lot less than that. And even if they had a 25% success rate in finding and killing a human, it’s much cheaper than the bullet, let alone the guns and the aircraft and all the rest of it.

So as a way of killing very, very large numbers of people it’s incredibly cheap and incredibly effective. They can also be selective. So you can kill just the kind of people you want to get rid of. And it seems to me that we just don’t need another weapon of mass destruction with all of these extra characteristics. We’ve got rid of to some extent biological and chemical weapons. We’re trying to get rid of nuclear weapons, and introducing another one that’s arguably much worse seems to be a step in the wrong direction.

Steven Pinker: You asked also about the benefits of artificial intelligence, which I think could be stupendous. They include elimination of drudgery and the boring and dangerous jobs that no one really likes to do, like stocking shelves, making beds, mining coal, and picking fruit. There could be a bonanza in automating all the things that humans want done without human pain and labor and boredom and danger. It raises the problem of how we will support the people (if new jobs don’t materialize) who have nothing to do. But that’s a more minor economic problem to solve, compared to the spectacular advance we could have in eliminating human drudgery.

Also, there are a lot of jobs, such as the care of elderly people–lifting them onto toilets, reaching things from upper shelves–that, if automated, would allow more of them to live at home instead of being warehoused in nursing homes. Here, too, the potential for human flourishing is spectacular. And as I mentioned, many kinds of human judgment are so error-prone that they can already be replaced by simple algorithms, and better still if they were more intelligent algorithms. There’s the potential of much less waste, much less error, far fewer accidents. An obvious example is the million and a quarter people killed in traffic accidents each year that could be terrifically reduced if we had autonomous vehicles that were affordable and widespread.

Lucas Perry: A core of this is that all of the problems that humanity faces simply require intelligence to solve them, essentially. And if we’re able to solve the problem of how to make intelligent machines, then our problems will evermore and continuously become automateable by machine systems. So Stuart, do have you have anything else to add here in terms of existential hope and benefits to compliment what Steve just contributed before we pivot into existential risk?

Stuart Russell: Yeah, there is an argument going around, and I think Mark Zuckerberg said it pretty clearly, and Oren Etzioni and various other people have said basically the same thing. And it’s usually put this way, “If you’re against AI, then you’re against better medical decisions, or reducing medical errors, or safer cars,” and so on. And this is, I think, just a ridiculous argument. So first of all, people who are concerned about the risks of AI, are not against AI, right? That’s like arguing if you’re a nuclear engineer and you’re concerned about the possibility of a design flaw that would lead to a meltdown, you’re against electricity. No, you’re not against electricity. You’re just against millions of people dying for no reason, and you want to fix the problem. And the same argument I think is true about those who are concerned about the risk of AI. If AI didn’t have any benefits we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all. No one would be investing any money, no one would have put their lives and careers into working on the capabilities of AI, and the whole point would be moot.

So of course, AI will have benefits, but if you don’t address the risks, you won’t get the benefits, because the technology will be rejected, or we won’t even have a choice to reject it. And if you look at what happened with nuclear power, I think it’s really an object lesson. Nuclear power could and still can produce quite cheap electricity. So I have a house in France and most electricity in France comes from nuclear power, and it’s very cheap and very reliable. And it also doesn’t produce a lot of carbon dioxide, but because of Chernobyl, the nuclear industry has been literally decimated, by which I mean, reduced by a factor of 10, or more. And so we didn’t get the benefits, because we didn’t pay enough attention to the risks. The same holds with AI.

So the benefits of AI in the long run I would argue are pretty unlimited, and medical errors and safer cars, that’s all nice, but that’s a tiny, tiny footnote in what can be done. As Steve already mentioned, the elimination of drudgery and repetitive work. It’s easy for us intellectuals to talk about that. We’ve never really engaged in a whole lot of it, but for most of the human race, for most of recorded history, people with power and money have used everybody else as robots to get what they want. Whether we’ve been using them as military robots, or agricultural robots, or factory robots, we’ve been using people as robots.

And if you had gone back to the early hunter gatherer days and written some science fiction, and you said, “You know what, in the future, people will go into big square buildings, thousands of feet long with no windows and they’ll do the same thing a thousand times a day. And then they’ll go back the next day and do the same thing another thousand times. And they’re going to do that for thousands of days until they’re practically dead.” The audience, the readers of science fiction in 20,000 BC, would have said, “You’re completely nuts, that’s so unrealistic.” But that’s how we did it. And now we’re worried that it’s coming to an end, and it is coming to an end, because we finally have robots that can do the things that we’ve been using human robots to do.

And I’m not saying we should just get rid of those jobs, because jobs have all kinds of purposes in people’s lives. And I’m not a big fan of UBI, which says basically, “Okay, we give up. Humans are useless, so the machines will feed them and house them, entertain them, but that’s all they’re good for.”

Now the benefits to me… It’s hard to imagine, just like we could not imagine very well all the things we would use the internet for. I mean, I remember the Berkeley computer science faculty in the ’80s sitting around at lunch, we knew more about networking than almost anybody else, but we still had absolutely no idea. What was the point of being able to click on a link? What’s that about? We totally blew it.

And we don’t understand all the things that superhuman AI could do for us. I mean, Steve mentioned that we could do much better science, and I agree with that. In the book, I visualize it as taking various ideas, like, “travel as a service,” and extending that to “everything as a service.” So travel as a service is a good example. Like if you think about going to Australia 200 years ago, you’re talking about a billion dollar proposition, probably 10 years, thousands of people, 80% chance of death. Now I take out my cell phone, I go tap, tap, tap, and now I’m in Australia tomorrow. And it’s basically free compared to what it used to be. So that’s what I mean by, as a service, you want something, you just get it.

Superhuman AI could make everything as a service. So think about the things that are expensive and difficult or impossible now, like training a neurosurgeon, or building a railway to connect your rural village to a nearby city so that people can visit, or trade, or whatever. For most of the developing world these things are completely out of reach. The health budget of a lot of countries in Africa is less than $10 per person per year. So the entire health budget of a country would train one neurosurgeon in the US. So these things are out of reach, but if you take out the humans then these services can become effectively free. They become services like travel is today, and that would enable us to bring everyone on earth up to the kind of living standard that they might aspire to. And if we can figure out the resource constraints and so on that will be a wonderful thing.

Lucas Perry: Now that’s quite a beautiful picture of the future. There’s a lot of existential hope there. The other side to existential hope is existential risk. Now this is an interesting subject, which Steve and you, Stuart, I believe have disagreements about. So pivoting into this area, and Steve, you can go first here, do you believe that human beings, should we not go extinct in the meantime, will we build artificial superintelligence? And does that pose an existential risk to humanity?

Steven Pinker: Yeah, I’m on record as being skeptical of that scenario and dubious about the value of putting a lot of effort into worrying about it now. The concept of superintelligence is itself obscure. In a lot of the discussions you could replace the word “superintelligence” with “magic” or “miracle” and the sentence would read the same. You read about an AI system that could duplicate brains in silicon, or solve problems like war in the Middle East, or cure cancer.  It’s just imagining the possibility of a solution and assuming that the ability to bring it about will exist, without laying out what that intelligence would consist of, or what would count as a solution to the problem. 

So I find the concept of superintelligence itself a dubious extrapolation of an unextrapolable continuum, like human-to-animal, or not-so-bright human-to-smart-human. I don’t think there is a power called “intelligence” such that we can compare a squirrel or an octopus to a human and say, “Well, imagine even more of that.” 

I’m also skeptical about the existential risk scenarios. They tend to come in two varieties. One is based on the notion of a will to power: that as soon as you get an intelligent system, it will inevitably want to dominate and exploit. Often the analogy is that we humans have exploited and often extinguished animals because we’re smarter than them, so as soon as there is an artificial system that’s smarter than us, it’ll do to us what we did to the dodos. Or that technologically advanced civilizations, like European colonists and conquistadors subjugated and sometimes wiped out indigenous peoples, so that’s what an AI system might do to us. That’s one variety of this scenario.

I think that scenario confuses intelligence with dominance, based on the fact that in one species, Homo sapiens, they happen to come bundled together, because we came about through natural selection, a competitive process driven by relative success at capturing scarce resources and competing for mates, ultimately with the goal of relative reproductive success. But there’s no reason that a system that is designed to pursue a goal would have as its goal, domination. This goes back to our earlier discussion that the ability to achieve a goal is distinct from what the goal is.

It just so happens that in products of natural selection, the goal was winning in reproductive competition. For an artifact we design, there’s just no reason that would be true. This is sometimes called the orthogonality thesis in discussions of existential risk, although that’s just a fancy-schmancy way of referring to Hume’s distinction between our goals and our intelligence.

Now I know that there is an argument that says, “Wouldn’t any intelligence system have to maximize its own survivability, because if it’s given the goal of X, well, you can’t achieve X if you don’t exist, therefore, as a subgoal to achieving X, you’ve got to maximize your own survival at all costs.” I think that’s fallacious. It’s certainly not true that all complex systems have to work toward their own perpetuation. My iPhone doesn’t take any steps to resist my dropping it into a toilet, or letting it run out of power.

You could imagine if it could be programmed like a child to whine, and to cry, and to refuse to do what it’s told to do as its power level went down. We wouldn’t buy one. And we know in the natural world, there are plenty of living systems that sacrifice their own existence for other goals. When a bee stings you, its barbed stinger is dislodged when the bee escapes, killing the bee, but because the bee is programmed to maximize the survivability of the colony, not itself, it willingly sacrifices itself. So it is not true that by definition an intelligent system has to maximize its own power or survivability.

But the more common existential threat scenario is not a will to power but collateral damage. That if an AI system is given a single goal, what if it relentlessly pursues it without consideration of side effects, including harm to us? There are famous examples that I originally thought were spoofs, but were intended seriously, like giving an AI system the goal of making as many paperclips as possible, and so it converts all available matter into paperclips, including our own bodies (putting aside the fact that we don’t need more efficient paperclip manufacturing than what we already have, and that human bodies are a pretty crummy source of iron for paperclips).

Barely more plausible is the idea that we might give an AI system the goal of curing cancer, and so it will  conscript us as involuntary guinea pigs and induce tumors in all of us, or that we might give it the goal of regulating the level of water behind a dam and it might flood a town because it was never given the goal of not drowning a village. 

The problem with these scenarios is that they’re self-refuting. They assume that an “intelligent” artifact would be designed to implement a single goal, which is not true of even the stupid artifacts that we live with. When we design a car, we don’t just give the goal of going from A to B as fast as possible; we also install brakes and a steering wheel and a muffler and a catalytic converter. A lot of these scenarios seem to presuppose both idiocy on the part of the designers, who would give a system control over the infrastructure of the entire planet without testing it first to see how it worked, and an idiocy on the part of the allegedly intelligent system, which would pursue a single goal regardless of all the other effects. This does not exist in any human artifact, let alone one that claims to be intelligent. Giving an AI system one vaguely worded, sketchy goal, and empowering it with control over the entire infrastructure of the planet without testing it first seems to me just so self-evidently moronic that I don’t worry that engineers have to be warned against it.

I’ve quoted Stuart himself, who in an interview made the point well when he said, “No one talks about building bridges that don’t fall down. They just call it building bridges.” Likewise, AI that avoids idiocies like that is just AI, it’s not AI with extra safeguards. That’s what intelligence consists of.

Let me make one other comment. You could say, well, even if the odds are small, the damage would be so catastrophic that it is worth our concern. But there are downsides to worrying about existential risk. One of them is the possible stigmatization and abandonment of helpful technologies. Stuart mentioned the example of nuclear power. What’s catastrophic is that we don’t roll out nuclear power the way that France did, which would go a long way toward solving the genuinely dangerous problem of climate change. Fear of nuclear power has been irrationally stoked by vivid examples:the fairly trivial accident at Three Mile Island in the United States, which killed no one, the tsunami at Fukushima, where people died in the botched evacuation, not the nuclear accident, and the Soviet bungling at Chernobyl. Even that accident killed a fraction of the people that die every day from the burning of fossil fuels, to say nothing of the likely future harm from climate change. The reaction to Chernobyl is exactly how we should not deal with the dangers facing humanity. 

Genetically modified organisms are another example: a technology overregulated or outlawed out of worst-case fears, depriving us of the spectacular benefits of greater ecological sustainability, human nutrition, and less use of water and pesticides. 

There are other downsides of fretting about exotic hypothetical existential risks. There is a line of reasoning in the existential risk community and the so called Rationality community that goes something like this: since the harm of extinguishing the species is basically infinite, probabilities no longer matter, because by expected utility calculations, if you multiply the tiny risk by the very large number of the potential descendants of humans before the sun expands and kills us off (or in wilder scenarios,  the astronomically larger number of immortal consciousnesses that will exist when we can upload our connectomes to the cloud, or when we colonize and multiply in other solar systems)—well, then even an eensy, eensy, infinitesimal probability of extinction would be catastrophic, and we should worry about it now.

The problem is that that argument could apply to any scenario with a nonzero probability, which means any scenario that is not logically impossible. Should we take steps to prevent the evolution of toxic killer gerbils that will nibble everyone to death? If I say, “That’s preposterous,” you can say, “Well, even if the probability is very, very small, since the harm of extinction is so great, we must devote some brain power to that scenario.”

I do fear the moral hazard of human intellect being absorbed in this free-for-all: that any risk, if you imagine it’s potentially existential, could justify any amount of expenditure, according to this expected utility calculation. The hazard is that smart people, clever enough to grasp a danger that common sense would never conceive of, will be absorbed into what might be a fruitless pursuit, compared to areas where we urgently do need application of human brain power–in climate, in the prevention of nuclear war, in the prevention of pandemics. Those are real risks, which no one denies, and we haven’t solved any of them, together with other massive sources of human misery like Alzheimer’s disease. Given these needs, I wonder whether the infinitesimal-probability-times-infinite-harm is the right way of allocating our intellectual capital.

Lucas Perry: Stuart, you want to react to those points.

Stuart Russell: Yeah, there’s a lot there to react to and I’m tempted to start at the end and work back and just ask, well, if we were spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to breed billions of toxic killer gerbils, wouldn’t you ask people if that was a good idea before dismissing any reason to be concerned about it? If that’s what we were actually investing in creating. I don’t buy the analogy between AI and toxic killer gerbils in any shape or form. But I will go back to the beginning, and we began by talking about feasibility. And Steve argues, I think, primarily, that it’s not even meaningful, that we could create superhuman levels of intelligence, that there isn’t a single continuum.

And yes, there isn’t a single continuum, but there doesn’t have to be a single continuum. When people say one person is more intelligent than another, or one species is more intelligent than other, it’s not a scientific statement that there is a single scalar on which species one exceeds species two. They’re talking in broad brush. So when we say humans are more intelligent than chimpanzees, that’s probably a reasonable thing to say, but there are clearly dimensions of intelligence where actually chimpanzees are more intelligent than humans. For example, short term memory. A chimpanzee, once they get what a digit is, they can learn 20 digit telephone numbers at the drop of a hat, and humans can’t do that. Clearly there’s dimensions on which chimpanzee intelligence, on average, is probably better than human. But nonetheless, when you look at which species would you rather be right now the chimpanzees don’t have much of a chance against the humans.

I think that there is a meaningful motion of generality of intelligence, and one way to think about it is to take a decision making scenario where we already understand how to produce very effective decisions, and then ask, how is that decision scenario restricted, and what happens when we relax the restrictions and figure out how to maintain the same, let’s say, superhuman quality of decision making? So if you look at Go play, it’s clear that the humans have been left far behind. So it’s not unreasonable to ask, just as the machines wiped the floor with humans on the Go board, and the chess board, and now on the StarCraft board, and lots of other boards, could you take that and transfer that into the real world where we make decisions of all kinds? The difference between the Go board and the real world is pretty dramatic. And that’s why we’ve had lots of success on the Go board and not so much in the real world.

The first thing is that the Go board is fully observable. You can see the entire state of the world that matters. And of course in the real world there’s lots of stuff you don’t see and don’t know. Some of it you can infer by accumulating information over time, what we call state estimation, but that turns out to be quite a difficult problem. Another thing is that we know all the rules of Go, and of course in the real world, you don’t know all the rules, you have to learn a lot as you go along. Another thing about the Go board is that despite the fact that we think of it as really complicated, it’s incredibly simple compared to the real world. At any given time on the Go board there’s a couple of hundred legal moves, and the game lasts for a couple hundred moves.

And if you said, well, what are the analogous primitive actions in the real world for a human being? Well, we have 600 muscles and we can actuate them maybe about 10 times per second each. Your brain probably isn’t able to do that, but physically that’s what could be your action space. And so you actually have then a far greater action space. And you’re also talking about… We often make plans that last for many years, which is literally trillions of primitive actions in terms of muscle actuations. Now we don’t plan those all out in detail, but we function on those kinds of timescales. Those are some of the ways that Go and the real world differ. And what we do in AI is we don’t say, okay, I’ve done Go, now I’m going to work on suicide Go, and now I’m going to work on chess with three queens.

What we try to do is extract the general lessons. Okay, we now understand fairly well how to handle that whole class of problems. Can we relax the assumptions, these basic qualitative assumptions about the nature of the problem? And if you relax all the ones that I listed, and probably a couple more that I’ve got, you’re getting towards systems that can function at a superhuman level in the real world, assuming that you figure out how to deal with all those issues. So just as we find ourself flummoxed by the moves that the AI system makes on the Go board, if you’re a General, and you’re up against an AI system that’s controlling, or coming up with the decision making plans for the other side, you might find yourself flummoxed, that everything you try, the machine has already anticipated and put in place something that will prevent your plan from succeeding. The pace of warfare will be beyond anything humans have ever contemplated, right?

So they won’t even have time to think, just as the Iraqis were not used to the rate of decision making of the US Army in the first Gulf War, and they couldn’t do anything. They were literally paralyzed, and just step by step by step the allied forces were able to take them apart because they couldn’t respond within the timescales that the allied forces were operating.

So it will be kind of like that if you were a human general. If you were a human CEO and your competitor company is organized and run by AI systems, you’d be in the same kind of situation. So it’s entirely conceivable. I’m not necessarily saying plausible, but conceivable that we can create real world decision making capabilities that exceed those of humans across the board. So that this notion of generality, I think it is something that still needs to be worked out. Most definitions of generality that people come up with end up saying, “Well, humans are general because they can do all the things that humans can do,” which is sort of a tautology. But nonetheless, it’s interesting that when you think about all the jobs: doctor, carpenter, advertising, sales, representative, most normally functioning people could do most of those jobs at least to some reasonable level.

So we are incredibly flexible compared to current AI systems. There is progress on achieving generality, but there’s a long way to go. I’m certainly not one of those who says that superintelligent AI is imminent and that’s why we need to worry. And in fact, I’m probably more conservative. If you want to appeal to what most expert AI people think, most expert AI people think that we will have something that’s reasonably described as superintelligent AI sooner than I do.

So most people think sometime in the middle of the century. It turns out that Asian AI researchers particularly in China are more optimistic, so they think 20 years. People in the US and Europe may be more like 40 years. I would be reasonably confident saying by the end of this century.

I think Nick Bostrom is in about the same place. He’s also more conservative than the average expert AI researcher. There are major breakthroughs that have to happen, but the massive investment that’s taking place, the influx of incredibly smart people into the field, these things suggest that those breakthroughs will probably take place but the timescale is very hard to say.

And when we think about the risks, I would say Steve is really putting up one straw man after another and then knocking it down. So for example, the paperclip argument is not a scenario that Nick Bostrom thinks is one of the more likely ways for the human race to end. It’s a philosophical thought experiment intended to illustrate a point. And the point is incontrovertible and I don’t think Steve disagrees with it.

So let’s not use the word intelligent because I think Steve here is using the word intelligent to mean always behaves in whatever way we think we wish that it would behave well.

Of course, if you define intelligence that way, then there isn’t an issue. The question is, how do we create any such thing? And the ways we have right now of creating any such thing fall under the standard model, which I described earlier that we set up, let’s call it a superoptimizer and then we give it an objective. And then off it goes. And he’s (Bostrom) describing what happens when you give a superoptimizer the wrong goal. And he’s not saying, “Yes, of course we should give it wrong goals.”

And he’s using this to illustrate what happens when you give it even what seems to be innocuous. So he’s trying to convey the idea that we are not very good at judging the consequences of seemingly innocuous goals. My example of curing cancer: “Curing cancer? Yeah, of course, that’s a good goal to give to an AI system” — but the point is, if that’s the only goal you give to the AI system, then all these weird things happen because that’s the nature of super optimizers. That’s the nature of the standard model of AI.

And this is, I think, the main point being made is not that no matter what we do AI going to get us. It’s that given our current understanding and given hundreds of billions of dollars are being invested into that current understanding then there is a failure mode and it’s reasonable to point that out just as if you’re a nuclear engineer and you say, “Look, everyone is designing these reactors in this way. All of you are doing this. And look there’s this failure mode.” That’s a reasonable thing to point out.

Steven Pinker: Several reactions. First, while money is pouring into AI, it’s not pouring it into super-optimizers tasked with curing cancer and with the power to kidnap people. And the analogies of humans outcompeting chimpanzees, or American generals outsmarting their Iraqi counterparts, once again assume that systems that are smarter than us will therefore be in competition with us. As for straw men, I was mindful to avoid them: the AI system that would give people tumors to pursue the goal of curing cancer was taken from Stuart’s book.

I agree that a super-optimizer that was given a single goal would be menace. But a super-optimizer that pursued a single goal is self-evidently unintelligent, not superintelligent! 

Stuart Russell: Of course, we have multiple goals. There’s a whole field of multi-attribute utility theory that’s been going now for more than 50 years. Of course, we understand that. When we look at even the design of the algorithms that Uber uses to get you to the airport, they take into account multiple goals.

But the point is the same argument applies if you operate in a standard model when you add in the multiple goals. Unless you’re able to be sure that you have completely and correctly captured all the things we care about under all conceivable and the inconceivable,because I think one of the things about superintelligent AI systems they will come up with, by human standards, inconceivable forms of actions.

We cannot guarantee that. And this is the point. So you could say multiple goals, but multiple goals are just a single goal. They add up to the ability to rank futures. And the question is: is that ability to rank futures fully aligned with what humans want their futures to be like? And the answer is inevitably, no. We are inevitably going to leave things out.

So even if you have a thousand terms in the objective function, there’s probably another million that you ought to have included that you didn’t think about because it never occurred to you.

So for example, you can go out and find lists of important things that human beings care about. This is sort of the whole-values community, human-development community, Maslow hierarchy, all of those things. People do make whole lists of things trying to build up a picture of very roughly what is the human utility function after all.

But invariably, those lists just refer to things that are usually a subject of discussion among humans about “Do we spend money on schools or hospitals?”or whatever it might be. On that list, you will not find the color of the sky because no one, no humans right now are thinking about, “Oh, should we change the sky to be orange with pink stripes?” But if someone did change the color of the sky, I can bet you a lot of people would be really upset about it.

And so invariably we fail to include many, many criteria in whatever list of objectives you might come up with. And when you do that, what happens is that the optimizer will take advantage of those dimensions of freedom and typically, and actually under fairly general algebraic conditions, will set them to extreme values because that gives you better optimization on the things that are in the list of goals.

So the argument is that within the standard model, which I bear some responsibility for, because it’s the way we wrote the first three editions of the textbook, within the standard model, further progress on AI could lead to increasing problems of control and it’s not because there’s any will to dominance.

I don’t know of any serious thinkers in the X-risk community who think that that’s the problem. That’s another straw man.

Steven Pinker: When you’re finished, I do have some responses to that.

Stuart Russell: The argument is not that we automatically build in because we all want our systems to be alpha males or anything like that. And I think Steve Omohundro has put it fairly clearly in some of his earlier papers that the behavior of a superoptimizer given any finite list of goals is going to include efforts to maximize its computational resources and other resources that will help it achieve the objectives that we do specify.

And you could put in something saying, “Well, and don’t spend any money.” Or, “Don’t do this and don’t do that and don’t do the other.” But the same structure of the argument is going to apply. We can reduce the risk by adding more and more stuff into the explicit objectives, but I think the argument I’m making in the book is that that’s just a completely broken way to design AI systems.

The meta argument is that if we don’t talk about the failure modes, we won’t be able to address them. So actually I think that Steve and I don’t disagree about the plausible future evolution. I don’t think it’s particularly plausible. If I was going into forecast mode, so just betting on the future saying, “What’s the probability that this thing will happen or that thing will happen?” I don’t think it’s particularly plausible that we will be destroyed by superintelligent AI.

And there are several reasons why I don’t think that’s going to occur because we would probably get some early warnings of it. And if we couldn’t figure out how to prevent it, we would probably put very strong restrictions on further development or we would figure out how to actually make it provably safe and beneficial.

But you can’t have that discussion unless you talk about the failure modes. Just like in nuclear safety, it’s not against the rules to raise possible failure modes like what if this molten sodium that you’re proposing should flow around all these pipes? What if it ever came into contact with the water that’s on the turbine side of the system? Wouldn’t you have a massive explosion which could rip off the containment and so on? That’s not exactly what happened in Chernobyl, but not so dissimilar.

And of course that’s what they do. So this culture of safety that Steve talks about consist exactly of this. People saying, “Look, if you design things that way these terrible things are going to happen. So don’t design things that way, design things this way.” And this is a process that we are going through in the AI community right now.

And I have to say, I just actually was reading a letter from one of my very senior colleagues, former president of AAAI, who said, “Five years ago, everyone thought Stuart was nuts, but Stuart was right. These risks have to be taken seriously and we all owe him a great debt for bringing it within the AI community so that we can start to address it.”

And I don’t think I invented these risks. And I was just in chance position that I had two years of sabbatical to think about the future of the field and to read some of the things that others had already written about the field from the outside.

My sense is that Steve and I are kind of the glass half full glass half empty. In terms of our forecast, we think on the whole, the weather tomorrow is likely to be sunny. I think we disagree on how to make sure that it’s sunny. I really do think that the problem of creating a provably beneficial AI, by which I mean that no matter how powerful the AI system is, we remain in power. We have power over it forever, that we never lose control.

That’s a big ask and the idea that we could solve that problem without even mentioning it, without even talking about it and without even pointing out why it’s difficult and why it’s important, that’s not the culture of safety. That’s sort of more like the culture of the communist party committee in Chernobyl, that simply continued to assert that nothing bad was happening.

Steven Pinker: Obviously, I’m in favor of the safety mindset of engineering, that is, you test the system before you implement it, you try to anticipate the failure modes. And perhaps I have overestimated the common sense of the AI community and they have to be warned about the absurdity of building a superoptimizer.  But a lot of these examples–flooding a town to control the water level, or curing cancer by turning humans into involuntary Guinea pigs, or maximizing happiness by injecting everyone with a drip of antidepressants–strike me as so far from reasonable failure modes that they’re not part of the ordinary engineering effort to ensure safety–particularly when they are coupled with the term “existential.”

These are not ordinary engineering discussions of ways in which a system could fail; they are speculations on how the human species might end. That is very different from not plugging in an AI system until you’ve tested it to find out how it fails. And perhaps we agree that the superoptimizers in these thought experiments are so unintelligent that no one will actually empower them.

Stuart Russell: But Steve, I wasn’t saying we give it one goal. I’m saying however many goals we give it, that’s equivalent to giving it a ranking over futures. So the idea of single goal versus multiple is a complete red herring.

Steven Pinker: But the scare stories all involve systems that are given a single goal. As you go down the tail of possible risks, you’re getting into potentially infinitesimal risks. There is no system, conceivable or existing, that will have zero risk of every possibility. 

Stuart Russell: If we could do that, if we had some serious theory by which we could say, “Okay. We’ve got within epsilon of the true human ranking over futures,” I think that’s very hard to do. We literally do not have a clue how to do that. And the purpose of these examples is actually to dismiss the idea that this has a simple solution.

So people want to dismiss the idea of risk by saying, “Oh, we’ll just give the AI system such and such objective.” And then the failure mode goes away and everything’s cool. And then people say, “Oh, but no.” Look, if you give it the objective that everyone should be happy, then here’s a solution that the AI system could find that clearly we wouldn’t want.

Those processes lead actually to deeper questioning, what do we really mean by happy? We don’t just mean pleasure as measured by the pleasure center in the brain. And the same arguments happen in moral philosophy.

So no one is accusing G.E. Moore of being a naive idiot because he objected to a pleasure maximization definition of what is a good moral decision to make. He was making an important philosophical point and I don’t think we should dismiss that same point when it’s made in the context of designing objectives for AI systems.

Steven Pinker: Yes, that’s an excellent argument against building a universally empowered AI system that’s given the single goal of maximizing human happiness–your example. Do AI researchers need to be warned against that absurd project? It seems to me that that’s the straw man, and so are the other scenarios that are designed to sow worry, such as conscripting the entire human race as involuntary guinea pigs in cancer experiments. Even if there isn’t an epsilon that we can’t go below in laying out possible risks, it doesn’t strike me that that’s within the epsilon.

These strike me more as exercises of human imagination. Assuming a ridiculously simple system that’s given one goal, what could go wrong? Well, yeah, stuff could go wrong, but is that really what’s going to face us when it comes to actual AI systems that have some hope of being implemented?

Naturally, we ought to test the living daylights out of any system before we give it control over anything. That’s Stuart’s point about building bridges that don’t fall down and the standard safety ethic in engineering. But I’m not sure that exotic scenarios based on incredibly stupid ideas for AI systems like giving one the goal of maximizing human happiness is the route that gives us safe AI.

Stuart Russell: Okay. So let me say once again that the one goal versus multiple goals is a red herring. If you think it’s so easy to specify the goal correctly, perhaps your next paper will write it out. Then we’ll say, “Okay, that’s not a straw man. This is Steve Pinker’s suggestion of what the objective should be for the superintelligent AI system.” And then the people who love doing these things, probably Nick Bostrom and others will find ways of failing.

So the idea that we could just test before deploying something that is significantly more powerful than human beings or even the human race combined, that’s a pretty optimistic idea. We’re not even able to test ordinary software systems right now. So test generation is one of the effective methods used in software engineering, but it has many, many known failure cases for real world examples, including multiplication.

Intel’s Pentium chip was tested with billions of examples of multiplication, but it failed to uncover a bug in the multiplication circuitry, which caused it to produce incorrect results in some cases. And so we have a technology of formal verification, which would have uncovered that error, but particularly in the US there’s a culture that’s somewhat opposed to using formal verification in software design.

Less so in hardware design nowadays, partly because of the Pentium error, but still in software, formal verification is considered very difficult and very European and not something we do. And this is far harder than that because software verification typically is thinking only about correctness of the software in an internal sense, that what happens inside the algorithm between the inputs and outputs meet some specifications.

What we want here is that the combination of the algorithm and the world evolves in ways that we are certain to be pleased about. And that’s a much harder kind of thing. Control theory has that view of what they mean by verification. And they’re able to do very simple linear quadratic regulators and a few other examples. And beyond that, they get stuck. And so I actually think that the testing is probably neither (not very) feasible. I mean, not saying we shouldn’t do it, but it’s going to be extremely hard to get any kind of confidence from testing, because you’re really asking, can you simulate the entire world and all the ways a system could use the world to bring about the objective.

However complicated and however multifaceted that objective is, it’s probably going to be the wrong one. So I’ve proposed a, not completely different, but a generalized form of AI that knows that it doesn’t know what the real objectives are. It knows it doesn’t know how humans rank possible futures and that changes the way it behaves, but that also has failure modes.

One of them being the plasticity of human preference rankings over the future and how do you prevent the AI system from taking advantage of that plasticity? You can’t prevent it completely because anything it does is going to have some effect on human preferences. But the question is what constitutes reasonable modifications of human preferences and what constitutes unreasonable ones? We don’t know the answer to that. So there are many, many really difficult research problems that we have to overcome for the research agenda that I’m proposing to have a chance of success.

I’m not that optimistic that this is an easy or a straightforward problem to solve and I think we can only solve it if we go outside the conceptual framework that AI has worked in for the last 70 years.

Steven Pinker: Well, yes. Certainly, if the conceptual framework for AI is optimizing some single or small list of generic goals, like a ranking over possible futures, and it is empowered to pursue them by any means, as opposed to building tools that solve specific problems. But note that you’ve also given arguments why the fantasies of superintelligence are unlikely to come about–the near-miraculous powers to outsmart us, to augment its own intelligence, to defeat all of our attempts to control it. In the scenarios, these all work flawlessly–yet  the complexities that make it hard to predict all conceivable failures also make it hard to achieve superintelligence in the first place.

Namely, we can’t take into account the fantastically chaotic and unpredictable reactions of humans. And we can’t program a system that has complete knowledge of the physical universe without allowing it to do experiments and acquire empirical knowledge, at a rate determined by the physical world. Exactly the infirmities that prevent us from exploring the entire space of behavior of one of these systems in advance is the reason that it’s not going to be superintelligent in the way that these scenarios outline.

And that’s a reason not to empower any generic goal-driven system that aspires toward “superintelligence” or that we might think of as “superintelligent”–it  is unlikely to exist, and likely to display various forms of error and stupidity.

Stuart Russell: I would agree that some of the concerns that you might see in the X-risk community are, say, nonphysical. So the idea that a system could predict the next hundred years and your entire life in such detail that a hundred years ago, it knew what you were going to be saying at a particular millisecond in a hundred years in the future, this is obviously complete nonsense.

I don’t think we need to be too concerned about that as a serious question. Whether it’s a thought experiment that sheds light on fundamental questions in decision theory, like the Newcomb problems is another issue that we don’t have to get into. But we can’t solve the problem by saying, “Well, superintelligence of the kind that could lead to significant global consequences could not possibly exist.”

And actually I kind of like Danny Hillis’ argument, which says that actually, no, it already does exist and it already has, and is having significant global consequences. And his example is to view, let’s say the fossil fuel industry as if it were an AI system. I think this is an interesting line of thought, because what he’s saying basically and — other people have said similar things — is that you should think of a corporation as if it’s an algorithm and it’s maximizing a poorly designed objective, which you might say is some discounted stream of quarterly profits or whatever. And it really is doing it in a way that’s oblivious to lots of other concerns of the human race. And it has outwitted the rest of the human race.

So we might all think, well, of course, we know that what it’s trying to do is wrong and of course we all know the right answer, but in fact we’ve lost and we should have pointed out a hundred years ago that there is this risk and it needs to be taken seriously.

And it was. People did point it out a hundred years ago, but no one took them seriously. And this is what happened. So I think we have actually a fairly good example that this type of thing, the optimization of objectives, ignoring externalities as the economists would point out, by superintelligent entities. And in some sense, the fossil fuel industry outwitted us because whatever organizational structures allow large groups of humans to generate effective complex behaviors in the real world and develop complex plans, it operates in some ways like a superintelligent entity, just like we were able to put a person on the moon because of the combined effect of many human intellects working together.

But each of those humans in the fossil fuel industry is a piece of an algorithm if you like and their own individual preferences about the future don’t count for much and in fact, they get molded by their role within the corporation.

I think in some ways you already have an existence proof that the concern is real.

Steven Pinker: A simpler explanation is that people like energy, fossil fuels are the most convenient source, and no one has had to pay for the external damage they do. Clearly we ought to anticipate foreseeable risks and attempt to mitigate them. But they have to be calibrated against what we know, taking into account our own ignorance of the future. It can be hazardous to chase the wrong worries, such as running out of petroleum, which was the big worry in the 1970s. Now we know that the problem with petroleum is too much, not too little. Overpopulation and genetically modified organisms are other examples. 

If we try to fantasize too far into the future, beyond what we can reasonably predict, we can sow fear about the wrong risks. My concern about all these centers and smart people worrying about the existential risk of AI is that we are misallocating our worry budget and our intellectual resources. We should be thinking hard about how to mitigate climate change, which is a real problem. That is less true of spinning exotic scenarios about hypothetical AI systems which have been given control over the physical universe and might enslave us in cancer experiments.

Lucas Perry: All right. So wrapping up here, do you guys have final statements that you’d like to say, just if you felt like what you just said didn’t fully capture what you want to end on on this issue of AI existential risk?

Steven Pinker: Despite our disagreements, most about my assessment of AI agrees with Stuart’s. I personally don’t think that the adjective existential is helpful in ordinary concerns over safety, which we ought to have. I think there are tremendous potential benefits to AI, and that we ought to seek at the same time as we anticipate the reasonable risks and take every effort to mitigate them.

Stuart Russell: Yep. I mean, it’s hard to disagree that we should focus on the reasonable risks. The question is whether you think that the hundreds of billions of dollars that are being invested into AI research will produce systems that can have potentially global consequences.

And to me it seems self evident that it can and we can look at even simple machine algorithms like the content selection algorithms in social media because those algorithms interact with humans for hours every day and dictate what literally billions of people see and read every day. They are having substantial global impact already.

And they are very, very simple. They don’t know that human beings exist at all, but they still learn to manipulate our brains to optimize the objective. I had a very interesting little Facebook exchange with Yann LeCun. And at some point in the argument, Yann said something quite similar to something Steve said earlier. He said, “There’s really no risk. You’d have to be extremely stupid to put an incorrect objective into a powerful system and then deploy it on a global scale.”

And I said, “Well, you mean like optimizing click-through?” And he said, “Facebook stopped using click-through years ago.” And I said, “Well, why was that?” And he said, “Oh, because it was the incorrect objective.”

So you did put an incorrect objective into a powerful system, deployed on a global scale. Now what does that say about Facebook? So I think just as you might have said — and in fact the nuclear industry did say — “It’s perfectly safe. Nothing can go wrong. We’re the experts. We understand safety. We understand everything.”

Nonetheless, we had Chernobyl, we had Fukushima. And actually, I think there’s an argument to be made that despite the massive environmental cost of foregoing nuclear power, that countries like Germany, Italy, Spain and probably a bunch of others are in the process of actually deciding that we need to phase out nuclear power because even though theoretically, it’s possible to develop and operate completely safe nuclear power systems, it’s beyond our capabilities and the evidence is there.

You might have argued that while Russia is corrupt, it’s technology was not as great as it should have been, they cut lots of corners, but you can’t argue that the Japanese nuclear industry was unsophisticated or unconcerned with safety, but they still failed. And so I think voters in those countries who said, “We don’t want nuclear power because we just don’t want to be in that situation even if we have the engineers making our best efforts.”

These kinds of considerations suggest that we do need to pay very careful attention. I’m not saying we should stop working on climate change, but when we invented synthetic biology, we said okay, we’d better think about how do we prevent the creation of disease or new disease organisms that could produce pandemics. And we took steps. People spent a lot of time thinking about safety mechanisms for those devices. We have to do the same thing for AI.

Lucas Perry: All right. Stuart and Steven, thanks so much. I’ve learned a ton of stuff today. If listeners want to follow you or look into your work, where’s the best place to do that? I’ll start with you, Steven.

Steven Pinker: Stevenpinker.com, which has pages for ten books, including the most recent, Enlightenment Now. SAPinker on Twitter. 

Lucas Perry: And Stuart.

Stuart Russell: So you can Google me. I don’t really have a website or social media activity, but the book Human Compatible, which was published last October by Viking in the US and Penguin in the UK and it’s being translated into lots of languages, I think that captures my views pretty well.

Lucas Perry: All right. Thanks so much for coming on. And yeah, it was a pleasure speaking.

Steven Pinker: Thanks very much, Lucas for hosting it. Thank you Stuart for the dialogue.

Stuart Russell:It was great fun, Steve. I look forward to doing it again.

Steven Pinker: Me too.

End of recorded material

AI Alignment Podcast: An Overview of Technical AI Alignment in 2018 and 2019 with Buck Shlegeris and Rohin Shah

 Topics discussed in this episode include:

  • Rohin’s and Buck’s optimism and pessimism about different approaches to aligned AI
  • Traditional arguments for AI as an x-risk
  • Modeling agents as expected utility maximizers
  • Ambitious value learning and specification learning/narrow value learning
  • Agency and optimization
  • Robustness
  • Scaling to superhuman abilities
  • Universality
  • Impact regularization
  • Causal models, oracles, and decision theory
  • Discontinuous and continuous takeoff scenarios
  • Probability of AI-induced existential risk
  • Timelines for AGI
  • Information hazards

Timestamps: 

0:00 Intro

3:48 Traditional arguments for AI as an existential risk

5:40 What is AI alignment?

7:30 Back to a basic analysis of AI as an existential risk

18:25 Can we model agents in ways other than as expected utility maximizers?

19:34 Is it skillful to try and model human preferences as a utility function?

27:09 Suggestions for alternatives to modeling humans with utility functions

40:30 Agency and optimization

45:55 Embedded decision theory

48:30 More on value learning

49:58 What is robustness and why does it matter?

01:13:00 Scaling to superhuman abilities

01:26:13 Universality

01:33:40 Impact regularization

01:40:34 Causal models, oracles, and decision theory

01:43:05 Forecasting as well as discontinuous and continuous takeoff scenarios

01:53:18 What is the probability of AI-induced existential risk?

02:00:53 Likelihood of continuous and discontinuous take off scenarios

02:08:08 What would you both do if you had more power and resources?

02:12:38 AI timelines

02:14:00 Information hazards

02:19:19 Where to follow Buck and Rohin and learn more

 

Works referenced: 

AI Alignment 2018-19 Review

Takeoff Speeds by Paul Christiano

Discontinuous progress investigation by AI Impacts

An Overview of Technical AI Alignment with Rohin Shah (Part 1)

An Overview of Technical AI Alignment with Rohin Shah (Part 2)

Alignment Newsletter

Intelligence Explosion Microeconomics

AI Alignment: Why It’s Hard and Where to Start

AI Risk for Computer Scientists

 

We hope that you will continue to join in the conversations by following us or subscribing to our podcasts on Youtube, Spotify, SoundCloud, iTunes, Google Play, StitcheriHeartRadio, or your preferred podcast site/application. You can find all the AI Alignment Podcasts here.

You can listen to the podcast above or read the transcript below. 

Note: The following transcript has been edited for style and clarity.

 

Lucas Perry: Welcome to the AI Alignment Podcast. I’m Lucas Perry. Today we have a special episode with Buck Shlegeris and Rohin Shah that serves as a review of progress in technical AI alignment over 2018 and 2019. This episode serves as an awesome birds eye view of the varying focus areas of technical AI alignment research and also helps to develop a sense of the field. I found this conversation to be super valuable for helping me to better understand the state and current trajectory of technical AI alignment research. This podcast covers traditional arguments for AI as an x-risk, what AI alignment is, the modeling of agents as expected utility maximizers, iterated distillation and amplification, AI safety via debate, agency and optimization, value learning, robustness, scaling to superhuman abilities, and more. The structure of this podcast is based on Rohin’s AI Alignment Forum post titled AI Alignment 2018-19 Review. That post is an excellent resource to take a look at in addition to this podcast. Rohin also had a conversation with us about just a year ago titled An Overview of Technical AI Alignment with Rohin shah. This episode serves as a follow up to that overview and as an update to what’s been going on in the field. You can find a link for it on the page for this episode.  

Buck Shlegeris is a researcher at the Machine Intelligence Research Institute. He tries to work to make the future good for sentient beings and currently believes that working on existential risk from artificial intelligence is the best way of doing this. Buck worked as a software engineer at PayPal before joining MIRI, and was the first employee at Triplebyte. He previously studied at the Australian National University, majoring in CS and minoring in math and physics, and he has presented work on data structure synthesis at industry conferences.

Rohin Shah is a 6th year PhD student in Computer Science at the Center for Human-Compatible AI at UC Berkeley. He is involved in Effective Altruism and was the co-president of EA UC Berkeley for 2015-16 and ran EA UW during 2016-2017. Out of concern for animal welfare, Rohin is almost vegan because of the intense suffering on factory farms. He is interested in AI, machine learning, programming languages, complexity theory, algorithms, security, and quantum computing to name a few. Rohin’s research focuses on building safe and aligned AI systems that pursue the objectives their users intend them to pursue, rather than the objectives that were literally specified. He also publishes the Alignment Newsletter, which summarizes work relevant to AI alignment. The Alignment Newsletter is something I highly recommend that you follow in addition to this podcast.  

And with that, let’s get into our review of AI alignment with Rohin Shah and Buck Shlegeris.

To get things started here, the plan is to go through Rohin’s post on the Alignment Forum about AI Alignment 2018 and 2019 In Review. We’ll be using this as a way of structuring this conversation and as a way of moving methodically through things that have changed or updated in 2018 and 2019, and to use those as a place for conversation. So then, Rohin, you can start us off by going through this document. Let’s start at the beginning, and we’ll move through sequentially and jump in where necessary or where there is interest.

Rohin Shah: Sure, that sounds good. I think I started this out by talking about this basic analysis of AI risk that’s been happening for the last couple of years. In particular, you have these traditional arguments, so maybe I’ll just talk about the traditional argument first, which basically says that the AI systems that we’re going to build are going to be powerful optimizers. When you optimize something, you tend to get these sort of edge case outcomes, these extreme outcomes that are a little hard to predict ahead of time.

You can’t just rely on tests with less powerful systems in order to predict what will happen, and so you can’t rely on your normal common sense reasoning in order to deal with this. In particular, powerful AI systems are probably going to look like expected utility maximizers due to various coherence arguments, like the Von Neumann–Morgenstern rationality theorem, and these expected utility maximizers have convergent instrumental sub-goals, like not wanting to be switched off because then they can’t achieve their goal, and wanting to accumulate a lot of power and resources.

The standard argument goes, because AI systems are going to be built this way, they will have these convergent instrumental sub-goals. This makes them dangerous because they will be pursuing goals that we don’t want.

Lucas Perry: Before we continue too much deeper into this, I’d want to actually start off with a really simple question for both of you. What is AI alignment?

Rohin Shah: Different people mean different things by it. When I use the word alignment, I’m usually talking about what has been more specifically called intent alignment, which is basically aiming for the property that the AI system is trying to do what you want. It’s trying to help you. Possibly it doesn’t know exactly how to best help you, and it might make some mistakes in the process of trying to help you, but really what it’s trying to do is to help you.

Buck Shlegeris: The way I would say what I mean by AI alignment, I guess I would step back a little bit, and think about why it is that I care about this question at all. I think that the fundamental fact which has me interested in anything about powerful AI systems of the future is that I think they’ll be a big deal in some way or another. And when I ask myself the question “what are the kinds of things that could be problems about how these really powerful AI systems work or affect the world”, one of the things which feels like a problem is that, we might not  know how to apply these systems reliably to the kinds of problems which we care about, and so by default humanity will end up applying them in ways that lead to really bad outcomes. And so I guess, from that perspective, when I think about AI alignment, I think about trying to make ways of building AI systems such that we can apply them to tasks that are valuable, such that that they’ll reliably pursue those tasks instead of doing something else which is really dangerous and bad.

I’m fine with intent alignment as the focus. I kind of agree with, for instance, Paul Christiano, that it’s not my problem if my AI system incompetently kills everyone, that’s the capability’s people’s problem. I just want to make the system so it’s trying to cause good outcomes.

Lucas Perry: Both of these understandings of what it means to build beneficial AI or aligned AI systems can take us back to what Rohin was just talking about, where there’s this basic analysis of AI risk, about AI as powerful optimizers and the associated risks there. With that framing and those definitions, Rohin, can you take us back into this basic analysis of AI risk?

Rohin Shah: Sure. The traditional argument looks like AI systems are going to be goal-directed. If you expect that your AI system is going to be goal-directed, and that goal is not the one that humans care about, then it’s going to be dangerous because it’s going to try to gain power and resources with which to achieve its goal.

If the humans tried to turn it off, it’s going to say, “No, don’t do that,” and it’s going to try to take actions that avoid that. So it pits the AI and the humans in an adversarial game with each other, and you ideally don’t want to be fighting against a superintelligent AI system. That seems bad.

Buck Shlegeris: I feel like Rohin is to some extent setting this up in a way that he’s then going to argue is wrong, which I think is kind of unfair. In particular, Rohin, I think you’re making these points about VNM theorems and stuff to set up the fact that it seems like these arguments don’t actually work. I feel that this makes it kind of unfairly sound like the earlier AI alignment arguments are wrong. I think this is an incredibly important question, of whether early arguments about the importance of AI safety were quite flawed. My impression is that overall the early arguments about AI safety were pretty good. And I think it’s a very interesting question whether this is in fact true. And I’d be interested in arguing about it, but I think it’s the kind of thing that ought to be argued about explicitly.

Rohin Shah: Yeah, sure.

Buck Shlegeris: And I get that you were kind of saying it narratively, so this is only a minor complaint. It’s a thing I wanted to note.

Rohin Shah: I think my position on that question of “how good were the early AI risk arguments,” probably people’s internal beliefs were good as to why AI was supposed to be risky, and the things they wrote down were not very good. Some things were good and some things weren’t. I think Intelligence Explosion Microeconomics was good. I think AI Alignment: Why It’s Hard and Where to Start, was misleading.

Buck Shlegeris: I think I agree with your sense that people probably had a lot of reasonable beliefs but that the written arguments seem flawed. I think another thing that’s true is that random people like me who were on LessWrong in 2012 or something, ended up having a lot of really stupid beliefs about AI alignment, which I think isn’t really the fault of the people who were thinking about it the best, but is maybe sociologically interesting.

Rohin Shah: Yes, that seems plausible to me. Don’t have a strong opinion on it.

Lucas Perry: To provide a little bit of framing here and better analysis of basic AI x-risk arguments, can you list what the starting arguments for AI risk were?

Rohin Shah: I think I am reasonably well portraying what the written arguments were. Underlying arguments that people probably had would be something more like, “Well, it sure seems like if you want to do useful things in the world, you need to have AI systems that are pursuing goals.” If you have something that’s more like tool AI, like Google Maps, that system is going to be good at the one thing it was designed to do, but it’s not going to be able to learn and then apply its knowledge to new tasks autonomously. It sure seems like if you want to do really powerful things in the world, like run companies or make policies, you probably do need AI systems that are constantly learning about their world and applying their knowledge in order to come up with new ways to do things.

In the history of human thought, we just don’t seem to know of a way to cause that to happen except by putting goals in systems, and so probably AI systems are going to be goal-directed. And one way you can formalize goal-directedness is by thinking about expected utility maximizers, and people did a bunch of formal analysis of that. Mostly going to ignore it because I think you can just say all the same thing with the idea of pursuing goals and it’s all fine.

Buck Shlegeris: I think one important clarification to that, is you were saying the reason that tool AIs aren’t just the whole story of what happens with AI is that you can’t apply it to all problems. I think another important element is that people back then, and I now, believe that if you want to build a really good tool, you’re probably going to end up wanting to structure that as an agent internally. And even if you aren’t trying to structure it as an agent, if you’re just searching over lots of different programs implicitly, perhaps by training a really large recurrent policy, you’re going to end up finding something agent shaped.

Rohin Shah: I don’t disagree with any of that. I think we were using the words tool AI differently.

Buck Shlegeris: Okay.

Rohin Shah: In my mind, if we’re talking about tool AI, we’re imagining a pretty restricted action space where no matter what actions in this action space are taken, with high probability, nothing bad is going to happen. And you’ll search within that action space, but you don’t go to arbitrary action in the real world or something like that. This is what makes tool AI hard to apply to all problems.

Buck Shlegeris: I would have thought that’s a pretty non-standard use of the term tool AI.

Rohin Shah: Possibly.

Buck Shlegeris: In particular, I would have thought that restricting the action space enough that you’re safe, regardless of how much it wants to hurt you, seems kind of non-standard.

Rohin Shah: Yes. I have never really liked the concept of tool AI very much, so I kind of just want to move on.

Lucas Perry: Hey, It’s post-podcast Lucas here. I just want to highlight here a little bit of clarification that Rohin was interested in adding, which is that he thinks that “tool AI evokes a sense of many different properties that he doesn’t know which properties most people are  usually thinking about and as a result he prefers not to use the phrase tool AI. And instead would like to use more precise terminology. He doesn’t necessarily feel though that the concepts underlying tool AI are useless.” So let’s tie things a bit back to these basic arguments for x-risk that many people are familiar with, that have to do with convergent instrumental sub-goals and the difficulty of specifying and aligning systems with our goals and what we actually care about in our preference hierarchies.

One of the things here that Buck was seeming to bring up, he was saying that you may have been narratively setting up the Von Neumann–Morgenstern theorem, which sets up AIs as expected utility maximizers, and that you are going to argue that that argument, which is sort of the formalization of these earlier AI risk arguments, that that is less convincing to you now than it was before, but Buck still thinks that these arguments are strong. Could you unpack this a little bit more or am I getting this right?

Rohin Shah: To be clear, I also agree with Buck, that the spirit of the original arguments does seem correct, though, there are people who disagree with both of us about that. Basically, the VNM theorem roughly says, if you have preferences over a set of outcomes, and you satisfy some pretty intuitive axioms about how you make decisions, then you can represent your preferences using a utility function such that your decisions will always be, choose the action that maximizes the expected utility. This is, at least in writing, given as a reason to expect that AI systems would be maximizing expected utility. The thing is, when you talk about AI systems that are acting in the real world, they’re just selecting a universe history, if you will. Any observed behavior is compatible with the maximization of some utility function. Utility functions are a really, really broad class of things when you apply it to choosing from universe histories.

Buck Shlegeris: An intuitive example of this: suppose that you see that every day I walk home from work in a really inefficient way. It’s impossible to know whether I’m doing that because I happened to really like that path. For any sequence of actions that I take, there’s some utility functions such that that was the optimal sequence of actions. And so we don’t actually learn anything about how my policy is constrained based on the fact that I’m an expected utility maximizer.

Lucas Perry: Right. If I only had access to your behavior and not your insides.

Rohin Shah: Yeah, exactly. If you have a robot twitching forever, that’s all it does, there is a utility function over a universe history that says that is the optimal thing to do. Every time the robot twitches to the right, it’s like, yeah, the thing that was optimal to do at that moment in time was twitching to the right. If at some point somebody takes a hammer and smashes the robot and it breaks, then the utility function that corresponds to that being optimal is like, yeah, that was the exact right moment to break down.

If you have these pathologically complex utility functions as possibilities, every behavior is compatible with maximizing expected utility, you might want to say something like, probably we’ll have the simple utility maximizers, but that’s a pretty strong assumption, and you’d need to justify it somehow. And the VNM theorem wouldn’t let you do that.

Lucas Perry: So is the problem here that you’re unable to fully extract human preference hierarchies from human behavior?

Rohin Shah: Well, you’re unable to extract agent preferences from agent behavior. You can see any agent behavior and you can rationalize it as expected utility maximization, but it’s not very useful. Doesn’t give you predictive power.

Buck Shlegeris: I just want to have my go at saying this argument in three sentences. Once upon a time, people said that because all rational systems act like they’re maximizing an expected utility function, we should expect them to have various behaviors like trying to maximize the amount of power they have. But every set of actions that you could take is consistent with being an expected utility maximizer, therefore you can’t use the fact that something is an expected utility maximizer in order to argue that it will have a particular set of behaviors, without making a bunch of additional arguments. And I basically think that I was wrong to be persuaded by the naive argument that Rohin was describing, which just goes directly from rational things are expected utility maximizers, to therefore rational things are power maximizing.

Rohin Shah: To be clear, this was the thing I also believed. The main reason I wrote the post that argued against it was because I spent half a year under the delusion that this was a valid argument.

Lucas Perry: Just for my understanding here, the view is that because any behavior, any agent from the outside can be understood as being an expected utility maximizer, that there are behaviors that clearly do not do instrumental sub-goal things, like maximize power and resources, yet those things can still be viewed as expected utility maximizers from the outside. So additional arguments are required for why expected utility maximizers do instrumental sub-goal things, which are AI risky.

Rohin Shah: Yeah, that’s exactly right.

Lucas Perry: Okay. What else is on offer other than expected utility maximizers? You guys talked about comprehensive AI services might be one. Are there other formal agentive classes of ‘thing that is not an expected utility maximizer but still has goals?’

Rohin Shah: A formalism for that? I think some people like John Wentworth is for example, thinking about markets as a model of agency. Some people like to think of multi-agent groups together leading to an emergent agency and want to model human minds this way. How formal are these? Not that formal yet.

Buck Shlegeris: I don’t think there’s anything which is competitively popular with expected utility maximization as the framework for thinking about this stuff.

Rohin Shah: Oh yes, certainly not. Expected utility maximization is used everywhere. Nothing else comes anywhere close.

Lucas Perry: So there’s been this complete focus on utility functions and representing the human utility function, whatever that means. Do you guys think that this is going to continue to be the primary way of thinking about and modeling human preference hierarchies? How much does it actually relate to human preference hierarchies? I’m wondering if it might just be substantially different in some way.

Buck Shlegeris: Me and Rohin are going to disagree about this. I think that trying to model human preferences as a utility function is really dumb and bad and will not help you do things that are useful. I don’t know; If I want to make an AI that’s incredibly good at recommending me movies that I’m going to like, some kind of value learning thing where it tries to learn my utility function over movies is plausibly a good idea. Even things where I’m trying to use an AI system as a receptionist, I can imagine value learning being a good idea.

But I feel extremely pessimistic about more ambitious value learning kinds of things, where I try to, for example, have an AI system which learns human preferences and then acts in large scale ways in the world. I basically feel pretty pessimistic about every alignment strategy which goes via that kind of a route. I feel much better about either trying to not use AI systems for problems where you have to think about large scale human preferences, or having an AI system which does something more like modeling what humans would say in response to various questions and then using that directly instead of trying to get a value function out of it.

Rohin Shah: Yeah. Funnily enough, I was going to start off by saying I think Buck and I are going to agree on this.

Buck Shlegeris: Oh.

Rohin Shah: And I think I mostly agree with the things that you said. The thing I was going to say was I feel pretty pessimistic about trying to model the normative underlying human values, where you have to get things like population ethics right, and what to do with the possibility of infinite value. How do you deal with fanaticism? What’s up with moral uncertainty? I feel pretty pessimistic about any sort of scheme that involves figuring that out before developing human-level AI systems.

There’s a related concept which is also called value learning, which I would prefer to be called something else, but I feel like the name’s locked in now. In my sequence, I called it narrow value learning, but even that feels bad. Maybe at least for this podcast we could call it specification learning, which is sort of more like the tasks Buck mentioned, like if you want to learn preferences over movies, representing that using a utility function seems fine.

Lucas Perry: Like superficial preferences?

Rohin Shah: Sure. I usually think of it as you have in mind a task that you want your AI system to do, and now you have to get your AI system to reliably do it. It’s unclear whether this should even be called a value learning at this point. Maybe it’s just the entire alignment problem. But techniques like inverse reinforcement learning, preference learning, learning from corrections, inverse reward design where you learn from a proxy reward, all of these are more trying to do the thing where you have a set of behaviors in mind, and you want to communicate that to the agent.

Buck Shlegeris: The way that I’ve been thinking about how optimistic I should be about value learning or specification learning recently has been that I suspect that at the point where AI is human level, by default we’ll have value learning which is about at human level. We’re about as good at giving AI systems information about our preferences that it can do stuff with as we are giving other humans information about our preferences that we can do stuff with. And when I imagine hiring someone to recommend music to me, I feel like there are probably music nerds who could do a pretty good job of looking at my Spotify history, and recommending bands that I’d like if they spent a week on it. I feel a lot more pessimistic about being able to talk to a philosopher for a week, and then them answer hard questions about my preferences, especially if they didn’t have the advantage of already being humans themselves.

Rohin Shah: Yep. That seems right.

Buck Shlegeris: So maybe that’s how I would separate out the specification learning stuff that I feel optimistic about from the more ambitious value learning stuff that I feel pretty pessimistic about.

Rohin Shah: I do want to note that I collated a bunch of stuff arguing against ambitious value learning. If I had to make a case for optimism about even that approach, it would look more like, “Under the value learning approach, it seems possible with uncertainty over rewards, values, preferences, whatever you want to call them to get an AI system such that you actually are able to change it, because it would reason that if you’re trying to change it, well then that means something about it is currently not good for helping you and so it would be better to let itself be changed. I’m not very convinced by this argument.”

Buck Shlegeris: I feel like if you try to write down four different utility functions that the agent is uncertain between, I think it’s just actually really hard for me to imagine concrete scenarios where the AI is corrigible as a result of its uncertainty over utility functions. Imagine the AI system thinks that you’re going to switch it off and replace it with an AI system which has a different method of inferring values from your actions and your words. It’s not going to want to let you do that, because its utility function is to have the world be the way that is expressed by your utility function as estimated the way that it approximates utility functions. And so being replaced by a thing which estimates utility functions or infers utility functions some other way means that it’s very unlikely to get what it actually wants, and other arguments like this. I’m not sure if these are super old arguments that you’re five levels of counter-arguments to.

Rohin Shah: I definitely know this argument. I think the problem of fully updated deference is what I would normally point to as representing this general class of claims and I think it’s a good counter argument. When I actually think about this, I sort of start getting confused about what it means for an AI system to terminally value the final output of what its value learning system would do. It feels like some additional notion of how the AI chooses actions has been posited, that hasn’t actually been captured in the model and so I feel fairly uncertain about all of these arguments and kind of want to defer to the future. 

Buck Shlegeris: I think the thing that I’m describing is just what happens if you read the algorithm literally. Like, if you read the value learning algorithm literally, it has this notion of the AI system wants to maximize the human’s actual utility function.

Rohin Shah: For an optimal agent playing a CIRL (cooperative inverse reinforcement learning) game, I agree with your argument. If you take optimality as defined in the cooperative inverse reinforcement learning paper and it’s playing over a long period of time, then yes, it’s definitely going to prefer to keep itself in charge rather than a different AI system that would infer values in a different way.

Lucas Perry: It seems like so far utility functions are the best way of trying to get an understanding of what human beings care about and value and have preferences over, you guys are bringing up all of the difficult intricacies with trying to understand and model human preferences as utility functions. One of the things that you also bring up here, Rohin, in your review, is the risk of lock-in, which may require us to solve hard philosophical problems before the development of AGI. That has something to do with ambitious value learning, which would be like learning the one true human utility function which probably just doesn’t exist.

Buck Shlegeris: I think I want to object to a little bit of your framing there. My stance on utility functions of humans isn’t that there are a bunch of complicated subtleties on top, it’s that modeling humans with utility functions is just a really sad state to be in. If your alignment strategy involves positing that humans behave as expected utility maximizers, I am very pessimistic about it working in the short term, and I just think that we should be trying to completely avoid anything which does that. It’s not like there’s a bunch of complicated sub-problems that we need to work out about how to describe us as expected utility maximizers, my best guess is that we would just not end up doing that because it’s not a good idea.

Lucas Perry: For the ambitious value learning?

Buck Shlegeris: Yeah, that’s right.

Lucas Perry: Okay, do you have something that’s on offer?

Buck Shlegeris: The two options instead of that, which seem attractive to me? As I said earlier, one is you just convince everyone to not use AI systems for things where you need to have an understanding of large scale human preferences. The other one is the kind of thing that Paul Christiano’s iterated distillation and amplification, or a variety of his other ideas, the kind of thing that he’s trying to get there is, I think, if you make a really powerful AI system, it’s actually going to have an excellent model of human values in whatever representation is best for actually making predictions about  humans because a really excellent AGI, like a really excellent paperclip maximizer, it’s really important for it to really get how humans work so that it can manipulate them into letting it build lots of paperclip factories or whatever.

So I think that if you think that we have AGI, then by assumption I think we have a system which is able to reason about human values if it wants. And so if we can apply these really powerful AI systems to tasks such that the things that they do display their good understanding of human values, then we’re fine and it’s just okay that there was no way that we could represent a utility function directly. So for instance, the idea in IDA is that if we could have this system which is just trying to answer questions the same way that humans would, but enormously more cheaply because it can run faster than humans and a few other tricks, then we don’t have to worry about writing down a utility functions of humans directly because we can just make the system do things that are kind of similar to the things humans would have done, and so it implicitly has this human utility function built into it. That’s option two. Option one is don’t use anything that requires a complex human utility function, option two is have your systems learn human values implicitly, by giving them a task such that this is beneficial for them and such that their good understanding of human values comes out in their actions.

Rohin Shah: One way I might condense that point, is that you’re asking for a nice formalism for human preferences and I just point to all the humans out there in the world who don’t know anything about utility functions, which is 99% of them and nonetheless still seem pretty good at inferring human preferences.

Lucas Perry: On this part about AGI, if it is AGI it should be able to reason about human preferences, then why would it not be able to construct something that was more explicit and thus was able to do more ambitious value learning?

Buck Shlegeris: So it can totally do that, itself. But we can’t force that structure from the outside with our own algorithms.

Rohin Shah: Image classification is a good analogy. Like, in the past we were using hand engineered features, namely SIFT and HOG and then training classifiers over these hand engineered features in order to do image classification. And then we came to the era of deep learning and we just said, yeah, throw away all those features and just do everything end to end with a convolutional neural net and it worked way better. The point was that, in fact there are good representations for most tasks and humans trying to write them down ahead of time just doesn’t work very well at that. It tends to work better if you let the AI system discover its own representations that best capture the thing you wanted to capture.

Lucas Perry: Can you unpack this point a little bit more? I’m not sure that I’m completely understanding it. Buck is rejecting this modeling human beings explicitly as expected utility maximizers and trying to explicitly come up with utility functions in our AI systems. The first was to convince people not to use these kinds of things. And the second is to make it so that the behavior and output of the AI systems has some implicit understanding of human behavior. Can you unpack this a bit more for me or give me another example?

Rohin Shah: So here’s another example. Let’s say I was teaching my kid that I don’t have, how to catch a ball. It seems that the formalism that’s available to me for learning how to catch a ball is, well, you can go all the way down to look at our best models of physics, we could use Newtonian mechanics let’s say, like here are these equations, estimate the velocity and the distance of the ball and the angle at which it’s thrown plug that into these equations and then predict that the ball’s going to come here and then just put your hand there and then magically catch it. We won’t even talk about the catching part. That seems like a pretty shitty way to teach a kid how to catch a ball.

Probably it’s just a lot better to just play catch with the kid for a while and let the kid’s brain figure out this is how to predict where the ball is going to go such that I can predict where it’s going to be and then catch it.

I’m basically 100% confident that the thing that the brain is doing is not Newtonian mechanics. It’s doing something else that’s just way more efficient at predicting where the ball is going to be so that I can catch it and if I forced the brain to use Newtonian mechanics, I bet it would not do very well at this task.

Buck Shlegeris: I feel like that still isn’t quite saying the key thing here. I don’t know how to say this off the top of my head either, but I think there’s this key point about: just because your neural net can learn a particular feature of the world doesn’t mean that you can back out some other property of the world by forcing the neural net to have a particular shape. Does that make any sense, Rohin?

Rohin Shah: Yeah, vaguely. I mean, well, no, maybe not.

Buck Shlegeris: The problem isn’t just the capabilities problem. There’s this way you can try and infer a human utility function by asking, according to this model, what’s the maximum likelihood utility function given all these things the human did. If you have a good enough model, you will in fact end up making very good predictions about the human, it’s just that the decomposition into their planning function and their utility function is not going to result in a utility function which is anything like a thing that I would want maximized if this process was done on me. There is going to be some decomposition like this, which is totally fine, but the utility function part just isn’t going to correspond to the thing that I want.

Rohin Shah: Yeah, that is also a problem, but I agree that is not the thing I was describing.

Lucas Perry: Is the point there that there’s a lack of alignment between the utility function and the planning function. Given that the planning function imperfectly optimizes the utility function.

Rohin Shah: It’s more like there are just infinitely many possible pairs of planning functions and utility functions that exactly predict human behavior. Even if it were true that humans were expected utility maximizers, which Buck is arguing we’re not, and I agree with him. There is a planning function that’s like humans are perfectly anti-rational and if you’re like what utility function works with that planner to predict human behavior. Well, the literal negative of the true utility function when combined with the anti-rational planner produces the same behavior as the true utility function with the perfect planner, there’s no information that lets you distinguish between these two possibilities.

You have to build it in as an assumption. I think Buck’s point is that building things in as assumptions is probably not going to work.

Buck Shlegeris: Yeah.

Rohin Shah: A point I agree with. In philosophy this is called the is-ought problem, right? What you can train your AI system on is a bunch of “is” facts and then you have to add in some assumptions in order to jump to “ought” facts, which is what the utility function is trying to do. The utility function is trying to tell you how you ought to behave in new situations and the point of the is-ought distinction is that you need some bridging assumptions in order to get from is to ought.

Buck Shlegeris: And I guess an important part here is your system will do an amazing job of answering “is” questions about what humans would say about “ought” questions. And so I guess maybe you could phrase the second part as: to get your system to do things that match human preferences, use the fact that it knows how to make accurate “is” statements about humans’ ought statements?

Lucas Perry: It seems like we’re strictly talking about inferring the human utility function or preferences via looking at behavior. What if you also had more access to the actual structure of the human’s brain?

Rohin Shah: This is like the approach that Stuart Armstrong likes to talk about. The same things still apply. You still have the is-ought problem where the facts about the brain are “is” facts and how you translate that into “ought” facts is going to involve some assumptions. Maybe you can break down such assumptions that everyone would agree with. Maybe it’s like if this particular neuron in a human brain spikes, that’s a good thing and we want more of it and if this other one spikes, that’s a bad thing. We don’t want it. Maybe that assumption is fine.

Lucas Perry: I guess I’m just pointing out, if you could find the places in the human brain that generate the statements about Ought questions.

Rohin Shah: As Buck said, that lets you predict what humans would say about ought statements, which your assumption could then be, whatever humans say about ought statements, that’s what you ought to do. And that’s still an assumption. Maybe it’s a very reasonable assumption that we’re happy to put it into our AI system.

Lucas Perry: If we’re not willing to accept some humans’ “is” statements about “ought” questions then we have to do some meta-ethical moral policing in our assumptions around getting “is” statements from “ought” questions.

Rohin Shah: Yes, that seems right to me. I don’t know how you would do such a thing, but you would have to do something along those lines.

Buck Shlegeris: I would additionally say that I feel pretty great about trying to do things which use the fact that we can trust our AI to have good “is” answers to “ought” questions, but there’s a bunch of problems with this. I think it’s a good starting point but trying to use that to do arbitrarily complicated things in the world has a lot of problems. For instance, suppose I’m trying to decide whether we should design a city this way or that way. It’s hard to know how to go from the ability to know how humans would answer questions about preferences to knowing what you should do to design the city. And this is for a bunch of reasons, one of them is that the human might not be able to figure out from your city building plans what the city’s going to actually be like. And another is that the human might give inconsistent answers about what design is good, depending on how you phrase the question, such that if you try to figure out a good city plan by optimizing for the thing that the human is going to be most enthusiastic about, then you might end up with a bad city plan. Paul Christiano has written in a lot of detail about a lot of this.

Lucas Perry: That also reminds me of what Stuart Armstrong wrote about the framing on the questions changing output on the preference.

Rohin Shah: Yep.

Buck Shlegeris: Sorry, to be clear other people than Paul Christiano have also written a lot about this stuff, (including Rohin). My favorite writing about this stuff is by Paul.

Lucas Perry: Yeah, those do seem problematic but it would also seem that there would be further “is” statements that if you queried people’s meta-preferences about those things, you would get more “is” statements about that, but then that just pushes the “ought” assumptions that you need to make further back. Getting into very philosophically weedy territory. Do you think that this kind of thing could be pushed to the long reflection as is talked about by William MacAskill and Toby Ord or how much of this do you actually think needs to be solved in order to have safe and aligned AGI?

Buck Shlegeris: I think there are kind of two different ways that you could hope to have good outcomes from AGI. One is: set up a world such that you never needed to make an AGI which can make large scale decisions about the world. And two is: solve the full alignment problem.

I’m currently pretty pessimistic about the second of those being technically feasible. And I’m kind of pretty pessimistic about the first of those being a plan that will work. But in the world where you can have everyone only apply powerful and dangerous AI systems in ways that don’t require an understanding of human values, then you can push all of these problems onto the long reflection. In worlds where you can do arbitrarily complicated things in ways that humans would approve of, you don’t really need to long reflect this stuff because of the fact that these powerful AI systems already have the capacity of doing portions of the long reflection work inside themselves as needed. (Quotes about the long reflection

Rohin Shah: Yeah, so I think my take, it’s not exactly disagreeing with Buck. It’s more like from a different frame as Buck’s. If you just got AI systems that did the things that humans did now, this does not seem to me to obviously require solving hard problems in philosophy. That’s the lower bound on what you can do before having to do long reflection type stuff. Eventually you do want to do a longer reflection. I feel relatively optimistic about having a technical solution to alignment that allows us to do the long reflection after building AI systems. So the long reflection would include both humans and AI systems thinking hard, reflecting on difficult problems and so on.

Buck Shlegeris: To be clear, I’m super enthusiastic about there being a long reflection or something along those lines.

Lucas Perry: I always find it useful reflecting on just how human beings do many of these things because I think that when thinking about things in the strict AI alignment sense, it can seem almost impossible, but human beings are able to do so many of these things without solving all of these difficult problems. It seems like in the very least, we’ll be able to get AI systems that very, very approximately do what is good or what is approved of by human beings because we can already do that.

Buck Shlegeris: That argument doesn’t really make sense to me. It also didn’t make sense when Rohin referred to it a minute ago.

Rohin Shah: It’s not an argument for we technically know how to do this. It is more an argument for this as at least within the space of possibilities.

Lucas Perry: Yeah, I guess that’s how I was also thinking of it. It is within the space of possibilities. So utility functions are good because they can be optimized for, and there seem to be risks with optimization. Is there anything here that you guys would like to say about better understanding agency? I know this is one of the things that is important within the MIRI agenda.

Buck Shlegeris: I am a bad MIRI employee. I don’t really get that part of the MIRI agenda, and so I’m not going to defend it. I have certainly learned some interesting things from talking to Scott Garrabrant and other MIRI people who have lots of interesting thoughts about this stuff. I don’t quite see the path from there to good alignment strategies. But I also haven’t spent a super long time thinking about it because I, in general, don’t try to think about all of the different AI alignment things that I could possibly think about.

Rohin Shah: Yeah. I also am not a good person to ask about this. Most of my knowledge comes from reading things and MIRI has stopped writing things very much recently, so I don’t know what their ideas are. I, like Buck, don’t really see a good alignment strategy that starts with, first we understand optimization and so that’s the main reason why I haven’t looked into it very much.

Buck Shlegeris: I think I don’t actually agree with the thing you said there, Rohin. I feel like understanding optimization could plausibly be really nice. Basically the story there is, it’s a real bummer if we have to make really powerful AI systems via searching over large recurrent policies for things that implement optimizers. If it turned out that we could figure out some way of coding up optimizer stuffs directly, then this could maybe mean you didn’t need to make mesa-optimizers. And maybe this means that your inner alignment problems go away, which could be really nice. The thing that I was saying I haven’t thought that much about is, the relevance of thinking about, for instance, the various weirdnesses that happen when you consider embedded agency or decision theory, and things like that.

Rohin Shah: Oh, got it. Yeah. I think I agree that understanding optimization would be great if we succeeded at it and I’m mostly pessimistic about us succeeding at it, but also there are people who are optimistic about it and I don’t know why they’re optimistic about it.

Lucas Perry: Hey it’s post-podcast Lucas here again. So, I just want to add a little more detail here again on behalf of Rohin. Here he feels pessimistic about us understanding optimization well enough and in a short enough time period that we are able to create powerful optimizers that we understand that rival the performance of the AI systems we’re already building and will build in the near future. Back to the episode. 

Buck Shlegeris: The arguments that MIRI has made about this,… they think that there are a bunch of questions about what optimization is, that are plausibly just not that hard compared to other problems which small groups of people have occasionally solved, like coming up with foundations of mathematics, kind of a big conceptual deal but also a relatively small group of people. And before we had formalizations of math, I think it might’ve seemed as impossible to progress on as formalizing optimization or coming up with a better picture of that. So maybe that’s my argument for some optimism.

Rohin Shah: Yeah, I think pointing to some examples of great success does not imply… Like there are probably many similar things that didn’t work out and we don’t know about them cause nobody bothered to tell us about them because they failed. Seems plausible maybe.

Lucas Perry: So, exploring more deeply this point of agency can either, or both of you, give us a little bit of a picture about the relevance or non relevance of decision theory here to AI alignment and I think, Buck, you mentioned the trickiness of embedded decision theory.

Rohin Shah: If you go back to our traditional argument for AI risk, it’s basically powerful AI systems will be very strong optimizers. They will possibly be misaligned with us and this is bad. And in particular one specific way that you might imagine this going wrong is this idea of mesa optimization where we don’t know how to build optimizers right now. And so what we end up doing is basically search across a huge number of programs looking for ones that do well at optimization and use that as our AGI system. And in this world, if you buy that as a model of what’s happening, then you’ll basically have almost no control over what exactly that system is optimizing for. And that seems like a recipe for misalignment. It sure would be better if we could build the optimizer directly and know what it is optimizing for. And in order to do that, we need to know how to do optimization well.

Lucas Perry: What are the kinds of places that we use mesa optimizers today?

Rohin Shah: It’s not used very much yet. The field of meta learning is the closest example. In the field of meta learning you have a distribution over tasks and you use gradient descent or some other AI technique in order to find an AI system that itself, once given a new task, learns how to perform that task well.

Existing meta learning systems are more like learning how to do all the tasks well and then when they’ll see a new task they just figure out ah, it’s this task and then they roll out the policy that they already learned. But the eventual goal for meta learning is to get something that, online, learns how to do the task without having previously figured out how to do that task.

Lucas Perry: Okay, so Rohin did what you say cover embedded decision theory?

Rohin Shah: No, not really. I think embedded decision theory is just, we want to understand optimization. Our current notion of optimization, one way you could formalize it is to say my AI agent is going to have Bayesian belief over all the possible ways that the environment could be. It’s going to update that belief over time as it gets observations and then it’s going to act optimally with respect to that belief, by maximizing its expected utility. And embedded decision theory basically calls into question the idea that there’s a separation between the agent and the environment. In particular I, as a human, couldn’t possibly have a Bayesian belief about the entire earth because the entire Earth contains me. I can’t have a Bayesian belief over myself so this means that our existing formalization of agency is flawed. It can’t capture these things that affect real agents. And embedded decision theory, embedded agency, more broadly, is trying to deal with this fact and have a new formalization that works even in these situations.

Buck Shlegeris: I want to give my understanding of the pitch for it. One part is that if you don’t understand embedded agency, then if you try to make an AI system in a hard coded way, like making a hard coded optimizer, traditional phrasings of what an optimizer is, are just literally wrong in that, for example, they’re assuming that you have these massive beliefs over world states that you can’t really have. And plausibly, it is really bad to try to make systems by hardcoding assumptions that are just clearly false. And so if we want to hardcode agents with particular properties, it would be good if we knew a way of coding the agent that isn’t implicitly making clearly false assumptions.

And the second pitch for it is something like when you want to understand a topic, sometimes it’s worth looking at something about the topic which you’re definitely wrong about, and trying to think about that part until you are less confused about it. When I’m studying physics or something, a thing that I love doing is looking for the easiest question whose answer I don’t know, and then trying to just dive in until I have satisfactorily answered that question, hoping that the practice that I get about thinking about physics from answering a question correctly will generalize to much harder questions. I think that’s part of the pitch here. Here is a problem that we would need to answer, if we wanted to understand how superintelligent AI systems work, so we should try answering it because it seems easier than some of the other problems.

Lucas Perry: Okay. I think I feel satisfied. The next thing here Rohin in your AI alignment 2018-19 review is value learning. I feel like we’ve talked a bunch about this already. Is there anything here that you want to say or do you want to skip this?

Rohin Shah: One thing we didn’t cover is, if you have uncertainty over what you’re supposed to optimize, this turns into an interactive sort of game between the human and the AI agent, which seems pretty good. A priori you should expect that there’s going to need to be a lot of interaction between the human and the AI system in order for the AI system to actually be able to do the things that the human wants it to do. And so having formalisms and ideas of where this interaction naturally falls out seems like a good thing.

Buck Shlegeris: I’ve said a lot of things about how I am very pessimistic about value learning as a strategy. Nevertheless it seems like it might be really good for there to be people who are researching this, and trying to get as good as we can get at improving sample efficiency so that can have your AI systems understand your preferences over music with as little human interaction as possible, just in case it turns out to be possible to solve the hard version of value learning. Because a lot of the engineering effort required to make ambitious value learning work will plausibly be in common with the kinds of stuff you have to do to make these more simple specification learning tasks work out. That’s a reason for me to be enthusiastic about people researching value learning even if I’m pessimistic about the overall thing working.

Lucas Perry: All right, so what is robustness and why does it matter?

Rohin Shah: Robustness is one of those words that doesn’t super clearly have a definition and people use it differently. Robust agents don’t fail catastrophically in situations slightly different from the ones that they were designed for. One example of a case where we see a failure of robustness currently, is in adversarial examples for image classifiers, where it is possible to take an image, make a slight perturbation to it, and then the resulting image is completely misclassified. You take a correctly classified image of a Panda, slightly perturb it such that a human can’t tell what the difference is, and then it’s classified as a gibbon with 99% confidence. Admittedly this was with an older image classifier. I think you need to make the perturbations a bit larger now in order to get them.

Lucas Perry: This is because the relevant information that it uses are very local to infer panda-ness rather than global properties of the panda?

Rohin Shah: It’s more like they’re high frequency features or imperceptible features. There’s a lot of controversy about this but there is a pretty popular recent paper that I believe, but not everyone believes, that claims that this was because they’re picking up on real imperceptible features that do generalize to the test set, that humans can’t detect. That’s an example of robustness. Recently people have been applying this to reinforcement learning both by adversarially modifying the observations that agents get and also by training agents that act in the environment adversarially towards the original agent. One paper out of CHAI showed that there’s this kick and defend environment where you’ve got two MuJoCo robots. One of them is kicking a soccer ball. The other one’s a goalie, that’s trying to prevent the kicker from successfully shooting a goal, and they showed that if you do self play in order to get kickers and defenders and then you take the kicker, you freeze it, you don’t train it anymore and you retrain a new defender against this kicker.

What is the strategy that this new defender learns? It just sort of falls to the ground and flaps about in a random looking way and the kicker just gets so confused that it usually fails to even touch the ball and so this is sort of an adversarial example for RL agents now, it’s showing that even they’re not very robust.

There was also a paper out of DeepMind that did the same sort of thing. For their adversarial attack they learned what sorts of mistakes the agent would make early on in training and then just tried to replicate those mistakes once the agent was fully trained and they found that this helped them uncover a lot of bad behaviors. Even at the end of training.

From the perspective of alignment, it’s clear that we want robustness. It’s not exactly clear what we want robustness to. This robustness to adversarial perturbations was kind of a bit weird as a threat model. If there is an adversary in the environment they’re probably not going to be restricted to small perturbations. They’re probably not going to get white box access to your AI system; even if they did, this doesn’t seem to really connect with the AI system as adversarially optimizing against humans story, which is how we get to the x-risk part, so it’s not totally clear.

I think on the intent alignment case, which is the thing that I usually think about, you mostly want to ensure that whatever is driving the “motivation” of the AI system, you want that to be very robust. You want it to agree with what humans would want in all situations or at least all situations that are going to come up or something like that. Paul Christiano has written a few blog posts about this that talk about what techniques he’s excited about solving that problem, which boil down to interpretability, adversarial training, and improving adversarial training through relaxations of the problem.

Buck Shlegeris: I’m pretty confused about this, and so it’s possible what I’m going to say is dumb. When I look at problems with robustness or problems that Rohin put in this robustness category here, I want to divide it into two parts. One of the parts is, things that I think of as capability problems, which I kind of expect the rest of the world will need to solve on its own. For instance, things about safe exploration, how do I get my system to learn to do good things without ever doing really bad things, this just doesn’t seem very related to the AI alignment problem to me. And I also feel reasonably optimistic that you can solve it by doing dumb techniques which don’t have anything too difficult to them, like you can have your system so that it has a good model of the world that it got from unsupervised learning somehow and then it never does dumb enough things. And also I don’t really see that kind of robustness problem leading to existential catastrophes. And the other half of robustness is the half that I care about a lot, which in my mind, is mostly trying to make sure that you succeeded at inner alignment. That is, that the mesa optimizers you’ve found through gradient descent have goals that actually match your goals.

This is like robustness in the sense that you’re trying to guarantee that in every situation, your AI system, as Rohin was saying, is intent aligned with you. It’s trying to do the kind of thing that you want. And I worry that, by default, we’re going to end up with AI systems not intent aligned, so there exist a bunch of situations they can be put in such that they do things that are very much not what you’d want, and therefore they fail at robustness. I think this is a really important problem, it’s like half of the AI safety problem or more, in my mind, and I’m not very optimistic about being able to solve it with prosaic techniques.

Rohin Shah: That sounds roughly similar to what I was saying. Yes.

Buck Shlegeris: I don’t think we disagree about this super much except for the fact that I think you seem to care more about safe exploration and similar stuff than I think I do.

Rohin Shah: I think safe exploration’s a bad example. I don’t know what safe exploration is even trying to solve but I think other stuff, I agree. I do care about it more. One place where I somewhat disagree with you is, you sort of have this point about all these robustness problems are the things that the rest of the world has incentives to figure out, and will probably figure out. That seems true for alignment too, it sure seems like you want your system to be aligned in order to do the things that you actually want. Everyone that has an incentive for this to happen. I totally expect people who aren’t EAs or rationalists or weird longtermists to be working on AI alignment in the future and to some extent even now. I think that’s one thing.

Buck Shlegeris: You should say your other thing, but then I want to get back to that point.

Rohin Shah: The other thing is I think I agree with you that it’s not clear to me how failures of the robustness of things other than motivation lead to x-risk, but I’m more optimistic than you are that our solutions to those kinds of robustness will help with the solutions to “motivation robustness” or how to make your mesa optimizer aligned.

Buck Shlegeris: Yeah, sorry, I guess I actually do agree with that last point. I am very interested in trying to figure out how to have aligned to mesa optimizers, and I think that a reasonable strategy to pursue in order to get aligned mesa optimizers is trying to figure out how to make your image classifiers robust to adversarial examples. I think you probably won’t succeed even if you succeed with the image classifiers, but it seems like the image classifiers are still probably where you should start. And I guess if we can’t figure out how to make image classifiers robust to adversarial examples in like 10 years, I’m going to be super pessimistic about the harder robustness problem, and that would be great to know.

Rohin Shah: For what it’s worth, my take on the adversarial examples of image classifiers is, we’re going to train image classifiers on more data with bigger nets, it’s just going to mostly go away. Prediction. I’m laying my cards on the table.

Buck Shlegeris: That’s also something like my guess.

Rohin Shah: Okay.

Buck Shlegeris: My prediction is: to get image classifiers that are robust to epsilon ball perturbations or whatever, some combination of larger things and adversarial training and a couple other clever things, will probably mean that we have robust image classifiers in 5 or 10 years at the latest.

Rohin Shah: Cool. And you wanted to return to the other point about the world having incentives to do alignment.

Buck Shlegeris: So I don’t quite know how to express this, but I think it’s really important which is going to make this a really fun experience for everyone involved. You know how Airbnb… Or sorry, I guess a better example of this is actually Uber drivers. Where I give basically every Uber driver a five star rating, even though some Uber drivers are just clearly more pleasant for me than others, and Uber doesn’t seem to try very hard to get around these problems, even though I think that if Uber caused there to be a 30% difference in pay between the drivers who I think of as 75th percentile and the drivers I think of as 25th percentile, this would make the service probably noticeably better for me. I guess it seems to me that a lot of the time the world just doesn’t try do kind of complicated things to make systems actually aligned, and it just does hack jobs, and then everyone deals with the fact that everything is unaligned as a result.

To draw this analogy back, I think that we’re likely to have the kind of alignment techniques that solve problems that are as simple and obvious as: we should have a way to have rate your hosts on Airbnb. But I’m worried that we won’t ever get around to solving the problems that are like, but what if your hosts are incentivized to tell you sob stories such that you give them good ratings, even though actually they were worse than some other hosts. And this is never a big enough deal that people are unilaterally individually incentivized to solve the harder version of the alignment problem, and then everyone ends up using these systems that actually aren’t aligned in the strong sense and then we end up in a doomy world. I’m curious if any of that made any sense.

Lucas Perry: Is a simple way to put that we fall into inadequate or an unoptimal equilibrium and then there’s tragedy of the commons and bad game theory stuff that happens that keeps us locked and that the same story could apply to alignment?

Buck Shlegeris: Yeah, that’s not quite what I mean.

Lucas Perry: Okay.

Rohin Shah: I think Buck’s point is that actually Uber or Airbnb could unilaterally, no gains required, make their system better and this would be an improvement for them and everyone else, and they don’t do it. There is nothing about equilibrium that is a failure of Uber to do this thing that seems so obviously good.

Buck Shlegeris: I’m not actually claiming that it’s better for Uber, I’m just claiming that there is a misalignment there. Plausibly, an Uber exec, if they were listening to this they’d just be like, “LOL, that’s a really stupid idea. People would hate it.” And then they would say more complicated things like “most riders are relatively price sensitive and so this doesn’t matter.” And plausibly they’re completely right.

Rohin Shah: That’s what I was going to say.

Buck Shlegeris: But the thing which feels important to me is something like a lot of the time it’s not worth solving the alignment problems at any given moment because something else is a bigger problem to how things are going locally. And this can continue being the case for a long time, and then you end up with everyone being locked in to this system where they never solved the alignment problems. And it’s really hard to make people understand this, and then you get locked into this bad world.

Rohin Shah: So if I were to try and put that in the context of AI alignment, I think this is a legitimate reason for being more pessimistic. And the way that I would make that argument is: it sure seems like we are going to decide on what method or path we’re going to use to build AGI. Maybe we’ll do a bunch of research and decide we’re just going to scale up language models or something like this. I don’t know. And we will do that before we have any idea of which technique would be easiest to align and as a result, we will be forced to try to align this exogenously chosen AGI technique and that would be harder than if we got to design our alignment techniques and our AGI techniques simultaneously.

Buck Shlegeris: I’m imagining some pretty slow take off here, and I don’t imagine this as ever having a phase where we built this AGI and now we need to align it. It’s more like we’re continuously building and deploying these systems that are gradually more and more powerful, and every time we want to deploy a system, it has to be doing something which is useful to someone. And many of the things which are useful, require things that are kind of like alignment. “I want to make a lot of money from my system that will give advice,” and if it wants to give good generalist advice over email, it’s going to need to have at least some implicit understanding of human preferences. Maybe we just use giant language models and everything’s just totally fine here. A really good language model isn’t able to give arbitrarily good aligned advice, but you can get advice that sounds really good from a language model, and I’m worried that the default path is going to involve the most popular AI advice services being kind of misaligned, and just never bothering to fix that. Does that make any more sense?

Rohin Shah: Yeah, I think I totally buy that that will happen. But I think I’m more like as you get to AI systems doing more and more important things in the world, it becomes more and more important that they are really truly aligned and investment in alignment increases correspondingly.

Buck Shlegeris: What’s the mechanism by which people realize that they need to put more work into alignment here?

Rohin Shah: I think there’s multiple. One is I expect that people are aware, like even in the Uber case, I expect people are aware of the misalignment that exists, but decide that it’s not worth their time to fix it. So the continuation of that, people will be aware of it and then they will decide that they should fix it.

Buck Shlegeris: If I’m trying to sell to city governments this language model based system which will give them advice on city planning, it’s not clear to me that at any point the city governments are going to start demanding better alignment features. Maybe that’s the way that it goes but it doesn’t seem obvious that city governments would think to ask that, and —

Rohin Shah: I wasn’t imagining this from the user side. I was imagining this from the engineers or designers side.

Buck Shlegeris: Yeah.

Rohin Shah: I think from the user side I would speak more to warning shots. You know, you have your cashier AI system or your waiter AIs and they were optimizing for tips more so than actually collecting money and so they like offer free meals in order to get more tips. At some point one of these AI systems passes all of the internal checks and makes it out into the world and only then does the problem arise and everyone’s like, “Oh my God, this is terrible. What the hell are you doing? Make this better.”

Buck Shlegeris: There’s two mechanisms via which that alignment might be okay. One of them is that researchers might realize that they want to put more effort into alignment and then solve these problems. The other mechanism is that users might demand better alignment because of warning shots. I think that I don’t buy that either of these is sufficient. I don’t buy that it’s sufficient for researchers to decide to do it because in a competitive world, the researchers who realize this is important, if they try to only make aligned products, they are not going to be able to sell them because their products will be much less good than the unaligned ones. So you have to argue that there is demand for the things which are actually aligned well. But for this to work, your users have to be able to distinguish between things that have good alignment properties and those which don’t, and this seems really hard for users to do. And I guess, when I try to imagine analogies, I just don’t see many examples of people successfully solving problems like this, like businesses making products that are different levels of dangerousness, and then users successfully buying the safe ones.

Rohin Shah: I think usually what happens is you get regulation that forces everyone to be safe. I don’t know if it was regulation, but like airplanes are incredibly safe. Cars are incredibly safe.

Buck Shlegeris: Yeah but in this case what would happen is doing the unsafe thing allows you to make enormous amounts of money, and so the countries which don’t put in the regulations are going to be massively advantaged compared to ones which don’t.

Rohin Shah: Why doesn’t that apply for cars and airplanes?

Buck Shlegeris: So to start with, cars in poor countries are a lot less safe. Another thing is that a lot of the effort in making safer cars and airplanes comes from designing them. Once you’ve done the work of designing it, it’s that much more expensive to put your formally-verified 747 software into more planes, and because of weird features of the fact that there are only like two big plane manufacturers, everyone gets the safer planes.

Lucas Perry: So tying this into robustness. The fundamental concern here is about the incentives to make aligned systems that are safety and alignment robust in the real world.

Rohin Shah: I think that’s basically right. I sort of see these incentives as existing and the world generally being reasonably good at dealing with high stakes problems.

Buck Shlegeris: What’s an example of the world being good at dealing with a high stakes problem?

Rohin Shah: I feel like biotech seems reasonably well handled, relatively speaking,

Buck Shlegeris: Like bio-security?

Rohin Shah: Yeah.

Buck Shlegeris: Okay, if the world handles AI as well as bio-security, there’s no way we’re okay.

Rohin Shah: Really? I’m aware of ways in which we’re not doing bio-security well, but there seem to be ways in which we’re doing it well too.

Buck Shlegeris: The nice thing about bio-security is that very few people are incentivized to kill everyone, and this means that it’s okay if you’re sloppier about your regulations, but my understanding is that lots of regulations are pretty weak.

Rohin Shah: I guess I was more imagining the research community’s coordination on this. Surprisingly good.

Buck Shlegeris: I wouldn’t describe it that way.

Rohin Shah: It seems like the vast majority of the research community is onboard with the right thing and like 1% isn’t. Yeah. Plausibly we need to have regulations for that last 1%.

Buck Shlegeris: I think that 99% of the synthetic biology research community is on board with “it would be bad if everyone died.” I think that some very small proportion is onboard with things like “we shouldn’t do research if it’s very dangerous and will make the world a lot worse.” I would say like way less than half of synthetic biologists seem to agree with statements like “it’s bad to do really dangerous research.” Or like, “when you’re considering doing research, you consider differential technological development.” I think this is just not a thing biologists think about, from my experience talking to biologists.

Rohin Shah: I’d be interested in betting with you on this afterwards.

Buck Shlegeris: Me too.

Lucas Perry: So it seems like it’s going to be difficult to come down to a concrete understanding or agreement here on the incentive structures in the world and whether they lead to the proliferation of unaligned AI systems or semi aligned AI systems versus fully aligned AI systems and whether that poses a kind of lock-in, right? Would you say that that fairly summarizes your concern Buck?

Buck Shlegeris: Yeah. I expect that Rohin and I agree mostly on the size of the coordination problem required, or the costs that would be required by trying to do things the safer way. And I think Rohin is just a lot more optimistic about those costs being paid.

Rohin Shah: I think I’m optimistic both about people’s ability to coordinate paying those costs and about incentives pointing towards paying those costs.

Buck Shlegeris: I think that Rohin is right that I disagree with him about the second of those as well.

Lucas Perry: Are you interested in unpacking this anymore? Are you happy to move on?

Buck Shlegeris: I actually do want to talk about this for two more minutes. I am really surprised by the claim that humans have solved coordination problems as hard as this one. I think the example you gave is humans doing radically nowhere near well enough. What are examples of coordination problem type things… There was a bunch of stuff with nuclear weapons, where I feel like humans did badly enough that we definitely wouldn’t have been okay in an AI situation. There are a bunch of examples of the US secretly threatening people with nuclear strikes, which I think is an example of some kind of coordination failure. I don’t think that the world has successfully coordinated on never threaten first nuclear strikes. If we had successfully coordinated on that, I would consider nuclear weapons to be less of a failure, but as it is the US has actually according to Daniel Ellsberg threatened a bunch of people with first strikes.

Rohin Shah: Yeah, I think I update less on specific scenarios and update quite a lot more on, “it just never happened.” The sheer amount of coincidence that would be required given the level of, Oh my God, there were close calls multiple times a year for many decades. That seems just totally implausible and it just means that our understanding of what’s happening is wrong.

Buck Shlegeris: Again, also the thing I’m imagining is this very gradual takeoff world where people, every year, they release their new most powerful AI systems. And if, in a particular year, AI Corp decided to not release its thing, then AI Corps two and three and four would rise to being one, two and three in total profits instead of two, three and four. In that kind of a world, I feel a lot more pessimistic.

Rohin Shah: I’m definitely imagining more of the case where they coordinate to all not do things. Either by international regulation or via the companies themselves coordinating amongst each other. Even without that, it’s plausible that AI Corp one does this. One example I’d give is, Waymo has just been very slow to deploy self driving cars relative to all the other self driving car companies, and my impression is that this is mostly because of safety concerns.

Buck Shlegeris: Interesting and slightly persuasive example. I would love to talk through this more at some point. I think this is really important and I think I haven’t heard a really good conversation about this.

Apologies for describing what I think is going wrong inside your mind or something, which is generally a bad way of saying things, but it sounds kind of to me like you’re implicitly assuming more concentrated advantage and fewer actors than I think actually are implied by gradual takeoff scenarios.

Rohin Shah: I’m usually imagining something like a 100+ companies trying to build the next best AI system, and 10 or 20 of them being clear front runners or something.

Buck Shlegeris: That makes sense. I guess I don’t quite see how the coordination successes you were describing arise in that kind of a world. But I am happy to move on.

Lucas Perry: So before we move on on this point, is there anything which you would suggest as obvious solutions, should Buck’s model of the risks here be the case. So it seemed like it would demand more centralized institutions which would help to mitigate some of the lock in here.

Rohin Shah: Yeah. So there’s a lot of work in policy and governance about this. Not much of which is public unfortunately. But I think the thing to say is that people are thinking about it and it does sort of look like trying to figure out how to get the world to actually coordinate on things. But as Buck has pointed out, we have tried to do this before and so there’s probably a lot to learn from past cases as well. But I am not an expert on this and don’t really want to talk as though I were one.

Lucas Perry: All right. So there’s lots of governance and coordination thought that kind of needs to go into solving many of these coordination issues around developing beneficial AI. So I think with that we can move along now to scaling to superhuman abilities. So Rohin, what do you have to say about this topic area?

Rohin Shah: I think this is in some sense related to what we were talking about before, you can predict what a human would say, but it’s hard to back out true underlying values beneath them. Here the problem is, suppose you are learning from some sort of human feedback about what you’re supposed to be doing, the information contained in that tells you how to do whatever the human can do. It doesn’t really tell you how to exceed what the human can do without having some additional assumptions.

Now, depending on how the human feedback is structured, this might lead to different things like if the human is demonstrating how to do the task to you, then this would suggest that it would be hard to do the task any better than the human can, but if the human was evaluating how well you did the task, then you can do the task better in a way that the human wouldn’t be able to tell was better. Ideally, at some point we would like to have AI systems that can actually do just really powerful, great things, that we are unable to understand all the details of and so we would neither be able to demonstrate or evaluate them.

How do we get to those sorts of AI systems? The main proposals in this bucket are iterated amplification, debate, and recursive reward modeling. So in iterated amplification, we started with an initial policy, and we alternate between amplification and distillation, which increases capabilities and efficiency respectively. This can encode a bunch of different algorithms, but usually amplification is done by decomposing questions into easier sub questions, and then using the agent to answer those sub questions. While distillation can be done using supervised learning or reinforcement learning, so you get these answers that are created by these amplified systems that take a long time to run, and you just train a neural net to very quickly predict the answers without having to do this whole big decomposition thing. In debate, we train an agent through self play in a zero sum game where the agent’s goal is to win a question answering debate as evaluated by a human judge. The hope here is that since both sides of the debate can point out flaws in the other side’s arguments — they’re both very powerful AI systems — such a set up can use a human judge to train far more capable agents while still incentivizing the agents to provide honest true information. With recursive reward modeling, you can think of it as an instantiation of the general alternate between amplification and distillation framework, but it works sort of bottom up instead of top down. So you’ll start by building AI systems that can help you evaluate simple, easy tasks. Then use those AI systems to help you evaluate more complex tasks and you keep iterating this process until eventually you have AI systems that help you with very complex tasks like how to design the city. And this lets you then train an AI agent that can design the city effectively even though you don’t totally understand why it’s doing the things it’s doing or why they’re even good.

Lucas Perry: Do either of you guys have any high level thoughts on any of these approaches to scaling to superhuman abilities?

Buck Shlegeris: I have some.

Lucas Perry: Go for it.

Buck Shlegeris: So to start with, I think it’s worth noting that another approach would be ambitious value learning, in the sense that I would phrase these not as approaches for scaling to superhuman abilities, but they’re like approaches for scaling to superhuman abilities while only doing tasks that relate to the actual behavior of humans rather than trying to back out their values explicitly. Does that match your thing Rohin?

Rohin Shah: Yeah, I agree. I often phrase that as with ambitious value learning, there’s not a clear ground truth to be focusing on, whereas with all three of these methods, the ground truth is what a human would do if they got a very, very long time to think or at least that is what they’re trying to approximate. It’s a little tricky to see why exactly they’re approximating that, but there are some good posts about this. The key difference between these techniques and ambitious value learning is that there is in some sense a ground truth that you are trying to approximate.

Buck Shlegeris: I think these are all kind of exciting ideas. I think they’re all kind of better ideas than I expected to exist for this problem a few years ago. Which probably means we should update against my ability to correctly judge how hard AI safety problems are, which is great news, in as much as I think that a lot of these problems are really hard. Nevertheless, I don’t feel super optimistic that any of them are actually going to work. One thing which isn’t in the elevator pitch for IDA, which is iterated distillation and amplification (and debate), is that you get to hire the humans who are going to be providing the feedback, or the humans whose answers AI systems are going to be trained with. And this is actually really great. Because for instance, you could have this program where you hire a bunch of people and you put them through your one month long training an AGI course. And then you only take the top 50% of them. I feel a lot more optimistic about these proposals given you’re allowed to think really hard about how to set it up such that the humans have the easiest time possible. And this is one reason why I’m optimistic about people doing research in factored cognition and stuff, which I’m sure Rohin’s going to explain in a bit.

One comment about recursive reward modeling: it seems like it has a lot of things in common with IDA. The main downside that it seems to have to me is that the human is in charge of figuring out how to decompose the task into evaluations at a variety of levels. Whereas with IDA, your system itself is able to naturally decompose the task into a variety levels, and for this reason I feel a bit more optimistic about IDA.

Rohin Shah: With recursive reward modeling, one agent that you can train is just an agent that’s good at doing decompositions. That is a thing you can do with it. It’s a thing that the people at DeepMind are thinking about. 

Buck Shlegeris: Yep, that’s a really good point. 

Rohin Shah: I also strongly like the fact that you can train your humans to be good at providing feedback. This is also true about specification learning. It’s less clear if it’s true about ambitious value learning. No one’s really proposed how you could do ambitious value learning really. Maybe arguably Stuart Russell’s book is kind of a proposal, but it doesn’t have that many details.

Buck Shlegeris: And, for example, it doesn’t address any of my concerns in ways that I find persuasive.

Rohin Shah: Right. But for specification learning also you definitely want to train the humans who are going to be providing feedback to the AI system. That is an important part of why you should expect this to work.

Buck Shlegeris: I often give talks where I try to give an introduction to IDA and debate as a proposal for AI alignment. I’m giving these talks to people with computer science backgrounds, and they’re almost always incredibly skeptical that it’s actually possible to decompose thought in this kind of a way. And with debate, they’re very skeptical that truth wins, or that the nash equilibrium is accuracy. For this reason I’m super enthusiastic about research into the factored cognition hypothesis of the type that Ought is doing some of.

I’m kind of interested in your overall take for how likely it is that the factored cognition hypothesis holds and that it’s actually possible to do any of this stuff, Rohin. You could also explain what that is.

Rohin Shah: I’ll do that. So basically with both iterated amplification, debate, or recursive reward modeling, they all hinge on this idea of being able to decompose questions, maybe it’s not so obvious why that’s true for debate, but it’s true. Go listen to the podcast about debate if you want to get more details on that.

So this hypothesis is basically for any tasks that we care about, it is possible to decompose this into a bunch of sub tasks that are all easier to do. Such that if you’re able to do the sub tasks, then you can do the overall top level tasks and in particular you can iterate this down, building a tree of smaller and smaller tasks until you can get to the level of tasks that a human could do in a day. Or if you’re trying to do it very far, maybe tasks that a human can do in a couple of minutes. Whether or not you can actually decompose the task “be an effective CEO” into a bunch of sub tasks that eventually bottom out into things humans can do in a few minutes is totally unclear. Some people are optimistic, some people are pessimistic. It’s called the factored cognition hypothesis and Ought is an organization that’s studying it.

It sounds very controversial at first and I, like many other people had the intuitive reaction of, ‘Oh my God, this is never going to work and it’s not true’. I think the thing that actually makes me optimistic about it is you don’t have to do what you might call a direct decomposition. You can do things like if your task is to be an effective CEO, your first sub question could be, what are the important things to think about when being a CEO or something like this, as opposed to usually when I think of decompositions I would think of, first I need to deal with hiring. Maybe I need to understand HR, maybe I need to understand all of the metrics that the company is optimizing. Very object level concerns, but the decompositions are totally allowed to also be meta level where you’ll spin off a bunch of computation that is just trying to answer the meta level of question of how should I best think about this question at all.

Another important reason for optimism is that based on the structure of iterated amplification, debate and recursive reward modeling, this tree can be gigantic. It can be exponentially large. Something that we couldn’t run even if we had all of the humans on Earth collaborating to do this. That’s okay. Given how the training process is structured, considering the fact that you can do the equivalent of millennia of person years of effort in this decomposed tree, I think that also gives me more of a, ‘okay, maybe this is possible’ and that’s also why you’re able to do all of this meta level thinking because you have a computational budget for it. When you take all of those together, I sort of come up with “seems possible. I don’t really know.”

Buck Shlegeris: I think I’m currently at 30-to-50% on the factored cognition thing basically working out. Which isn’t nothing.

Rohin Shah: Yeah, that seems like a perfectly reasonable thing. I think I could imagine putting a day of thought into it and coming up with numbers anywhere between 20 and 80.

Buck Shlegeris: For what it’s worth, in conversation at some point in the last few years, Paul Christiano gave numbers that were not wildly more optimistic than me. I don’t think that the people who are working on this think it’s obviously fine. And it would be great if this stuff works, so I’m really in favor of people looking into it.

Rohin Shah: Yeah, I should mention another key intuition against it. We have all these examples of human geniuses like Ramanujan, who were posed very difficult math problems and just immediately get the answer and then you ask them how did they do it and they say, well, I asked myself what should the answer be? And I was like, the answer should be a continued fraction. And then I asked myself which continued fraction and then I got the answer. And you’re like, that does not sound very decomposable. It seems like you need these magic flashes of intuition. Those would be the hard cases for factored cognition. It still seems possible that you could do it by both this exponential try a bunch of possibilities and also by being able to discover intuitions that work in practice and just believing them because they work in practice and then applying them to the problem at hand. You could imagine that with enough computation you’d be able to discover such intuitions.

Buck Shlegeris: You can’t answer a math problem by searching exponentially much through the search tree. The only exponential power you get from IDA is IDA is letting you specify the output of your cognitive process in such a way that’s going to match some exponentially sized human process. As long as that exponentially sized human process was only exponentially sized because it’s really inefficient, but is kind of fundamentally not an exponentially sized problem, then your machine learning should be able to speed it up a bunch. But the thing where you search over search strategy is not valid. If that’s all you can do, that’s not good enough.

Rohin Shah: Searching over search strategies, I agree you can’t do, but if you have an exponential search that could be implemented by humans. We know by hypothesis, if you can solve it with a flash of intuition, there is in fact some more efficient way to do it and so whether or not the distillation steps will actually be enough to get to the point where you can do those flashes of intuition. That’s an open question.

Buck Shlegeris: This is one of my favorite areas of AI safety research and I would love for there to be more of it. Something I have been floating for a little while is I kind of wish that there was another Ought. It just seems like it would be so good if we had definitive information about the factored cognition hypothesis. And it also it seems like the kind of thing which is potentially parallelizable. And I feel like I know a lot of people who love talking about how thinking works. A lot of rationalists are really into this. I would just be super excited for some of them to form teams of four and go off on their own and build an Ought competitor. I feel like this is the kind of thing where plausibly, a bunch of enthusiastic people could make progress on their own.

Rohin Shah: Yeah, I agree with that. Definitely seems like one of the higher value things but I might be more excited about universality.

Lucas Perry: All right, well let’s get started with universality then. What is universality and why are you optimistic about it?

Rohin Shah: So universality is hard to explain well, in a single sentence. For whatever supervisor is training our agent, you want that supervisor to “know everything the agent knows.” In particular if the agent comes up with some deceptive strategy to look like it’s achieving the goal, but actually it hasn’t. The supervisors should know that it was doing this deceptive strategy for the reason of trying to trick the supervisor and so the supervisor can then penalize it. The classic example of why this is important and hard also due to Paul Christiano is plagiarism. Suppose you are training on the AI system to produce novel works of literature and as part of its training data, the AI system gets to read this library of a million books.

It’s possible that this AI system decides, Hey, you know the best way I can make a great novel seeming book is to just take these five books and take out plot points, passages from each of them and put them together and then this new book will look totally novel and will be very good because I used all of the best Shakespearean writing or whatever. If your supervisor doesn’t know that the agent has done this, the only way the supervisor can really check is to go read the entire million books. Even if the agent only read 10 books and so then the supervision becomes a way more costly than running the agent, which is not a great state to be in, and so what you really want is that if the agent does this, the supervisor is able to say, I see that you just copied this stuff over from these other books in order to trick me into thinking that you had written something novel that was good.

That’s bad. I’m penalizing you. Stop doing that in the future. Now, this sort of property, I mean it’s very nice in the abstract, but who knows whether or not we can actually build it in practice. There’s some reason for optimism that I don’t think I can adequately convey, but I wrote a newsletter summarizing some of it sometime ago, but again, reading through the posts I became more optimistic that it was an achievable property, than when I first heard what the property was. The reason I’m optimistic about it is that it just sort of seems to capture the thing that we actually care about. It’s not everything, like it doesn’t solve the robustness problem. Universality only tells you what the agent’s currently doing. You know all the facts about that. Whereas for robustness you want to say even in these hypothetical situations that the agent hasn’t encountered yet and doesn’t know stuff about, even when it encounters those situations, it’s going to stay aligned with you so universality doesn’t get you all the way there, but it definitely feels like it’s getting you quite a bit.

Buck Shlegeris: That’s really interesting to hear you phrase it that way. I guess I would have thought of universality as a subset of robustness. I’m curious what you think of that first.

Rohin Shah: I definitely think you could use universality to achieve a subset of robustness. Maybe I would say universality is a subset of interpretability.

Buck Shlegeris: Yeah, and I care about interpretability as a subset of robustness basically, or as a subset of inner alignment, which is pretty close to robustness in my mind. The other thing I would say is you were saying there that one difference between universality and robustness is that universality only tells you why the agent did the thing it currently did, and this doesn’t suffice to tell us about the situations that the agent isn’t currently in. One really nice thing though is that if the agent is only acting a particular way because it wants you to trust it, that’s a fact about its current behavior that you will know, and so if you have the universality property, your overseer just knows your agent is trying to deceive it. Which seems like it would be incredibly great and would resolve like half of my problem with safety if you had it.

Rohin Shah: Yeah, that seems right. The case that universality doesn’t cover is when your AI system is initially not deceptive, but then at some point in the future it’s like, ‘Oh my God, now it’s possible to go and build Dyson spheres or something, but wait, in this situation probably I should be doing this other thing and humans won’t like that. Now I better deceive humans’. The transition into deception would have to be a surprise in some sense even to the AI system.

Buck Shlegeris: Yeah, I guess I’m just not worried about that. Suppose I have this system which is as smart as a reasonably smart human or 10 reasonably smart humans, but it’s not as smart as the whole world. If I can just ask it what its best sense about how aligned it is, is? And if I can trust its answer? I don’t know man, I’m pretty okay with systems that think they’re aligned, answering that question honestly.

Rohin Shah: I think I somewhat agree. I like this reversal where I’m the pessimistic one.

Buck Shlegeris: Yeah me too. I’m like, “look, system, I want you to think as hard as you can to come up with the best arguments you can come up with for why you are misaligned, and the problems with you.” And if I just actually trust the system to get this right, then the bad outcomes I get here are just pure accidents. I just had this terrible initialization of my neural net parameters, such that I had this system that honestly believed that it was going to be aligned. And then as it got trained more, this suddenly changed and I couldn’t do anything about it. I don’t quite see the story for how this goes super wrong. It seems a lot less bad than the default situation.

Rohin Shah: Yeah. I think the story I would tell is something like, well, if you look at humans, they’re pretty wrong about what their preferences will be in the future. For example, there’s this trope of how teenagers fall in love and then fall out of love, but when they’re in love, they swear undying oaths to each other or something. To the extent that is true, that seems like the sort of failure that could lead to x-risk if it also happened with AI systems.

Buck Shlegeris: I feel pretty optimistic about all the garden-variety approaches to solving this. Teenagers were not selected very hard on accuracy of their undying oaths. And if you instead had accuracy of self-model as a key feature you were selecting for in your AI system, plausibly you’ll just be way more okay.

Rohin Shah: Yeah. Maybe people could coordinate well on this. I feel less good about people coordinating on this sort of problem.

Buck Shlegeris: For what it’s worth, I think there are coordination problems here and I feel like my previous argument about why coordination is hard and won’t happen by default also probably applies to us not being okay. I’m not sure how this all plays out. I’d have to think about it more.

Rohin Shah: Yeah. I think it’s more like this is a subtle and non-obvious problem, which by hypothesis doesn’t happen in the systems you actually have and only happens later and those are the sorts of problems I’m like, Ooh, not sure if we can deal with those ones, but I agree that there’s a good chance that there’s just not a problem at all in the world where we already have universality and checked all the obvious stuff.

Buck Shlegeris: Yeah. I would like to say universality is one of my other favorite areas of AI alignment research, in terms of how happy I’d be if it worked out really well.

Lucas Perry: All right, so let’s see if we can slightly pick up the pace here. Moving forward and starting with interpretability.

Rohin Shah: Yeah, so I mean I think we’ve basically discussed interpretability already. Universality is a specific kind of interpretability, but the case for interpretability is just like, sure seems like it would be good if you could understand what your AI systems are doing. You could then notice when they’re not aligned, and fix that somehow. It’s a pretty clear cut case for a thing that would be good if we achieved it and it’s still pretty uncertain how likely we are to be able to achieve it.

Lucas Perry: All right, so let’s keep it moving and let’s hit impact regularization now.

Rohin Shah: Yeah, impact regularization in particular is one of the ideas that are not trying to align the AI system but are instead trying to say, well, whatever AI system we build, let’s make sure it doesn’t cause a catastrophe. It doesn’t lead to extinction or existential risk. What it hopes to do is say, all right, AI system, do whatever it is you wanted to do. I don’t care about that. Just make sure that you don’t have a huge impact upon the world.

Whatever you do, keep your impact not too high. And so there’s been a lot of work on this in recent years there’s been relative reachability, attainable utility preservation, and I think in general the sense is like, wow, it’s gone quite a bit further than people expected it to go. I think it definitely does prevent you from doing very, very powerful things of the sort, like if you wanted to stop all competing AI projects from ever being able to build AGI, that doesn’t seem like the sort of thing you can do with an impact regularized AI system, but it sort of seems plausible that you could prevent convergent instrumental sub goals using impact regularization. Where AI systems that are trying to steal resources and power from humans, you could imagine that you’d say, hey, don’t do that level of impact, you can still have the level of impact of say running a company or something like that.

Buck Shlegeris: My take on all this is that I’m pretty pessimistic about all of it working. I think that impact regularization or whatever is a non-optimal point on the capabilities / alignment trade off or something, in terms of safety you’re getting for how much capability you’re sacrificing. My basic a problem here is basically analogous to my problem with value learning, where I think we’re trying to take these extremely essentially fuzzy concepts and then factor our agent through these fuzzy concepts like impact, and basically the thing that I imagine happening is any impact regularization strategy you try to employ, if your AI is usable, will end up not helping with its alignment. For any definition of impacts you come up with, it’ll end up doing something which gets around that. Or it’ll make your AI system completely useless, is my basic guess as to what happens.

Rohin Shah: Yeah, so I think again in this setting, if you formalize it and then say, consider the optimal agent. Yeah, that can totally get around your impact penalty, but in practice it sure seems like, what you want to do is say this convergent instrumental subgoal stuff, don’t do any of that. Continue to do things that are normal in regular life. And those seem like pretty distinct categories. Such that I would not be shocked if we could actually distinguish between the two.

Buck Shlegeris: It sounds like the main benefit you’re going for is trying to make your AI system not do insane, convergent, instrumental sub-goal style stuff. So another approach I can imagine taking here would be some kind of value learning or something, where you’re asking humans for feedback on whether plans are insanely convergent, instrumental sub-goal style, and just not doing the things which, when humans are asked to rate how sketchy the plans are the humans rate as sufficiently sketchy? That seems like about as good a plan. I’m curious what you think.

Rohin Shah: The idea of power as your attainable utility across a wide variety of utility functions seems like a pretty good formalization to me. I think in the worlds where I actually buy a formalization, I tend to expect the formalization to work better. I do think the formalization is not perfect. Most notably with the current formalization of power, your power never changes if you have extremely good beliefs. Your notion, you’re just like, I always have the same power because I’m always able to do the same things and you never get surprised, so maybe I agree with you because I think the current formalization is not good enough.  (The strike through section has been redacted by Rohin. It’s incorrect and you can see why here.) Yeah, I think I agree with you but I could see it going either way.

Buck Shlegeris: I could be totally wrong about this, and correct me if I’m wrong, my sense is that you have to be able to back out the agent’s utility function or its models of the world. Which seems like it’s assuming a particular path for AI development which doesn’t seem to me particularly likely.

Rohin Shah: I definitely agree with that for all the current methods too.

Buck Shlegeris: So it’s like: assume that we have already perfectly solved our problems with universality and robustness and transparency and whatever else. I feel like you kind of have to have solved all of those problems before you can do this, and then you don’t need it or something.

Rohin Shah: I don’t think I agree with that. I definitely agree that the current algorithms that people have written assume that you can just make a change to the AI’s utility function. I don’t think that’s what even their proponents would suggest as the actual plan.

Buck Shlegeris: What is the actual plan?

Rohin Shah: I don’t actually know what their actual plan would be, but one plan I could imagine is figure out what exactly the conceptual things we have to do with impact measurement are, and then whatever method we have for building AGI, probably there’s going to be some part which is specify the goal and then in the specify goal part, instead of just saying pursue X, we want to say pursue X without changing your ability to pursue Y, and Z and W, and P, and Q.

Buck Shlegeris: I think that that does not sound like a good plan. I don’t think that we should expect our AI systems to be structured that way in the future.

Rohin Shah: Plausibly we have to do this with natural language or something.

Buck Shlegeris: It seems very likely to me that the thing you do is reinforcement learning where at the start of the episode you get a sentence of English which is telling you what your goal is and then blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and this seems like a pretty reasonable strategy for making powerful and sort of aligned AI. Aligned enough to be usable for things that aren’t very hard. But you just fundamentally don’t have access to the internal representations that the AI is using for its sense of what belief is, and stuff like that. And that seems like a really big problem.

Rohin Shah: I definitely see this as more of an outer alignment thing, or like an easier to specify outer alignment type thing than say, IDA is that type stuff.

Buck Shlegeris: Okay, I guess that makes sense. So we’re just like assuming we’ve solved all the inner alignment problems?

Rohin Shah: In the story so far yeah, I think all of the researchers who actually work on this haven’t thought much about inner alignment.

Buck Shlegeris: My overall summary is that I really don’t like this plan. I feel like it’s not robust to scale. As you were saying Rohin, if your system gets more and more accurate beliefs, stuff breaks. It just feels like the kind of thing that doesn’t work.

Rohin Shah: I mean, it’s definitely not conceptually neat and elegant in the sense of it’s not attacking the underlying problem. And in a problem setting where you expect adversarial optimization type dynamics, conceptual elegance actually does count for quite a lot in whether or not you believe your solution will work.

Buck Shlegeris: I feel it’s like trying to add edge detectors to your image classifiers to make them more adversarily robust or something, which is backwards.

Rohin Shah: Yeah, I think I agree with that general perspective. I don’t actually know if I’m more optimistic than you. Maybe I just don’t say… Maybe we’d have the same uncertainty distributions and you just say yours more strongly or something.

Lucas Perry: All right, so then let’s just move a little quickly through the next three, which are causal modeling, oracles, and decision theory.

Rohin Shah: Yeah, I mean, well decision theory, MIRI did some work on it. I am not the person to ask about it, so I’m going to skip that one. Even if you look at the long version, I’m just like, here are some posts. Good luck. So causal modeling, I don’t fully understand what the overall story is here but the actual work that’s been published is basically what we can do is we can take potential plans or training processes for AI systems. We can write down causal models that tell us how the various pieces of the training system interact with each other and then using algorithms developed for causal models we can tell when an AI system would have an incentive to either observe or intervene on an underlying variable.

One thing that came out of this was that you can build a model-based reinforcement learner that doesn’t have any incentive to wire head as long as when it makes its plans, the plans are evaluated by the current reward function as opposed to whatever future reward function it would have. And that was explained using this framework of causal modeling. Oracles, Oracles are basically the idea that we can just train an AI system to just answer questions, give it a question and it tries to figure out the best answer it can to that question, prioritizing accuracy.

One worry that people have recently been talking about is the predictions that the Oracle makes then affect the world, which can affect whether or not the prediction was correct. Like maybe if I predict that I will go to bed at 11 then I’m more likely to actually go to bed at 11 because I want my prediction to come true or something and so then the Oracles can still “choose” between different self confirming predictions and so that gives them a source of agency and one way that people want to avoid this is using what are called counter-factual Oracles where you set up the training, such that the Oracles are basically making predictions under the assumption that their predictions are not going to influence the future.

Lucas Perry: Yeah, okay. Oracles seem like they just won’t happen. There’ll be incentives to make things other than Oracles and that Oracles would even be able to exert influence upon the world in other ways.

Rohin Shah: Yeah, I think I agree that Oracles do not seem very competitive.

Lucas Perry: Let’s do forecasting now then.

Rohin Shah: So the main sub things within forecasting one, there’s just been a lot of work recently on actually building good forecasting technology. There has been an AI specific version of Metaculus that’s been going on for a while now. There’s been some work at the Future of Humanity Institute on building better tools for working with probability distributions under recording and evaluating forecasts. There was an AI resolution council where basically now you can make forecasts about what this particular group of people will think in five years or something like that, which is much easier to operationalize than most other kinds of forecasts. So this helps with constructing good questions. On the actual object level, I think there are two main things. One is that it became increasingly more obvious in the past two years that AI progress currently is being driven by larger and larger amounts of compute.

It totally could be driven by other things as well, but at the very least, compute is a pretty important factor. And then takeoff speeds. So there’s been this long debate in the AI safety community over whether — to take the extremes, whether or not we should expect that AI capabilities will see a very sharp spike. So initially, your AI capabilities are improving by like one unit a year, maybe then with some improvements it got to two units a year and then for whatever reason, suddenly they’re now at 20 units a year or a hundred units a year and they just swoop way past what you would get by extrapolating past trends, and so that’s what we might call a discontinuous takeoff. If you predict that that won’t happen instead you’ll get AI that’s initially improving at one unit per year. Then maybe two units per year, maybe three units per year. Then five units per year, and the rate of progress continually increases. The world’s still gets very, very crazy, but in a sort of gradual, continuous way that would be called a continuous takeoff.

Basically there were two posts that argued pretty forcefully for continuous takeoff back in, I want to say February of 2018, and this at least made me believe that continuous takeoff was more likely. Sadly, we just haven’t actually seen much defense of the other side of the view since then. Even though we do know that there definitely are people who still believe the other side, that there will be a discontinuous takeoff.

Lucas Perry: Yeah so what are both you guys’ views on them?

Buck Shlegeris: Here are a couple of things. One is that I really love the operationalization of slow take off or continuous take off that Paul provided in his post, which was one of the ones Rohin was referring to from February 2018. He says, “by slow takeoff, I mean that there is a four year doubling of the economy before there is a one year doubling of the economy.” As in, there’s a period of four years over which world GDP increases by a factor four, after which there is a period of one year. As opposed to a situation where the first one-year doubling happens out of nowhere. Currently, doubling times for the economy are on the order of like 20 years, and so a one year doubling would be a really big deal. The way that I would phrase why we care about this, is because worlds where we have widespread, human level AI feel like they have incredibly fast economic growth. And if it’s true that we expect AI progress to increase gradually and continuously, then one important consequence of this is that by the time we have human level AI systems, the world is already totally insane. A four year doubling would just be crazy. That would be economic growth drastically higher than economic growth currently is.

This means it would be obvious to everyone who’s paying attention that something is up and the world is radically changing in a rapid fashion. Another way I’ve been thinking about this recently is people talk about transformative AI, by which they mean AI which would have at least as much of an impact on the world as the industrial revolution had. And it seems plausible to me that octopus level AI would be transformative. Like suppose that AI could just never get better than octopus brains. This would be way smaller of a deal than I expect AI to actually be, but it would still be a massive deal, and would still possibly lead to a change in the world that I would call transformative. And if you think this is true, and if you think that we’re going to have octopus level AI before we have human level AI, then you should expect that radical changes that you might call transformative have happened by the time that we get to the AI alignment problems that we’ve been worrying about. And if so, this is really big news.

When I was reading about this stuff when I was 18, I was casually imagining that the alignment problem is a thing that some people have to solve while they’re building an AGI in their lab while the rest of the world’s ignoring them. But if the thing which is actually happening is the world is going insane around everyone, that’s a really important difference.

Rohin Shah: I would say that this is probably the most important contested question in AI alignment right now. Some consequences of it are in a gradual or continuous takeoff world you expect that by the time we get to systems that can pose an existential risk. You’ve already had pretty smart systems that have been deployed in the real world. They probably had some failure modes. Whether or not we call them alignment failure modes or not is maybe not that important. The point is people will be aware that AI systems can fail in weird ways, depending on what sorts of failures you expect, you might expect this to lead to more coordination, more involvement in safety work. You might also be more optimistic about using testing and engineering styles of approaches to the problem which rely a bit more on trial and error type of reasoning because you actually will get a chance to see errors before they happen at a super intelligent existential risk causing mode. There are lots of implications of this form that pretty radically change which alignment plans you think are feasible.

Buck Shlegeris: Also, it’s pretty radically changed how optimistic you are about this whole AI alignment situation, at the very least, people who are very optimistic about AI alignment causing relatively small amounts of existential risk. A lot of the reason for this seems to be that they think that we’re going to get these warning shots where before we have superintelligent AI, we have sub-human level intelligent AI with alignment failures like the cashier Rohin was talking about earlier. And then people start caring about AI alignment a lot more. So optimism is also greatly affected by what you think about this.

I’ve actually been wanting to argue with people about this recently. I wrote a doc last night where I was arguing that even in gradual takeoff worlds, we should expect a reasonably high probability of doom if we can’t solve the AI alignment problem. And I’m interested to have this conversation in more detail with people at some point. But yeah, I agree with what Rohin said.

Overall on takeoff speeds, I guess I still feel pretty uncertain. It seems to me that currently, what we can do with AI, like AI capabilities are increasing consistently, and a lot of this comes from applying relatively non-mindblowing algorithmic ideas to larger amounts of compute and data. And I would be kind of surprised if you can’t basically ride this wave away until you have transformative AI. And so if I want to argue that we’re going to have fast takeoffs, I kind of have to argue that there’s some other approach you can take which lets you build AI without having to go along that slow path, which also will happen first. And I guess I think it’s kind of plausible that that is what’s going to happen. I think that’s what you’d have to argue for if you want to argue for a fast take off.

Rohin Shah: That all seems right to me. I’d be surprised if, out of nowhere, we saw a new AI approach suddenly started working and overtook deep learning. You also have to argue that it then very quickly reaches human level AI, which would be quite surprising, right? In some sense, it would have to be something completely novel that we failed to think about in the last 60 years. We’re putting in way more effort now than we were in the last 60 years, but then counter counterpoint is that all of that extra effort is going straight into deep learning. It’s not really searching for completely new paradigm-shifting ways to get to AGI.

Buck Shlegeris: So here’s how I’d make that argument. Perhaps a really important input into a field like AI, is the number of really smart kids who have been wanting to be an AI researcher since they were 16 because they thought that it’s the most important thing in the world. I think that in physics, a lot of the people who turn into physicists have actually wanted to be physicists forever. I think the number of really smart kids who wanted to be AI researchers forever has possibly gone up by a factor of 10 over the last 10 years, it might even be more. And there just are problems sometimes, that are bottle necked on that kind of a thing, probably. And so it wouldn’t be totally shocking to me, if as a result of this particular input to AI radically increasing, we end up in kind of a different situation. I haven’t quite thought through this argument fully.

Rohin Shah: Yeah, the argument seems plausible. There’s a large space of arguments like this. I think even after that, then I’ve started questioning, “Okay, we get a new paradigm. The same arguments apply to that paradigm?” Not as strongly. I guess not the arguments you were saying about compute going up over time, but the arguments given in the original slow takeoff posts which were people quickly start taking the low-hanging fruit and then move on. When there’s a lot of effort being put into getting some property, you should expect that easy low-hanging fruit is usually just already taken, and that’s why you don’t expect discontinuities. Unless the new idea just immediately rockets you to human-level AGI, or x-risk causing AGI, I think the same argument would pretty quickly start applying to that as well.

Buck Shlegeris: I think it’s plausible that you do get rocketed pretty quickly to human-level AI. And I agree that this is an insane sounding claim.

Rohin Shah: Great. As long as we agree on that.

Buck Shlegeris: Something which has been on my to-do list for a while, and something I’ve been doing a bit of and I’d be excited for someone else doing more of, is reading the history of science and getting more of a sense of what kinds of things are bottlenecked by what, where. It could lead me to be a bit less confused about a bunch of this stuff. AI Impacts has done a lot of great work cataloging all of the things that aren’t discontinuous changes, which certainly is a strong evidence to me against my claim here.

Lucas Perry: All right. What is the probability of AI-induced existential risk?

Rohin Shah: Unconditional on anything? I might give it 1 in 20. 5%.

Buck Shlegeris: I’d give 50%.

Rohin Shah: I had a conversation with AI Impacts that went into this in more detail and partially just anchored on the number I gave there, which was 10% conditional on no intervention from longtermists, I think the broad argument is really just the one that Buck and I were disagreeing about earlier, which is to what extent will society be incentivized to solve the problem? There’s some chance that the first thing we try just works and we don’t even need to solve any sort of alignment problem. It might just be fine. This is not implausible to me. Maybe that’s 30% or something.

Most of the remaining probability comes from, “Okay, the alignment problem is a real problem. We need to deal with it.” It might be very easy in which case we can just solve it straight away. That might be the case. That doesn’t seem that likely to me if it was a problem at all. But what we will get is a lot of these warning shots and people understanding the risks a lot more as we get more powerful AI systems. This estimate is also conditional on gradual takeoff. I keep forgetting to say that, mostly because I don’t know what probability I should put on discontinuous takeoff.

Lucas Perry: So is 5% with longtermist intervention, increasing to 10% if fast takeoff?

Rohin Shah: Yes, but still with longtermist intervention. I’m pretty pessimistic on fast takeoff, but my probability assigned to fast takeoff is not very high. In a gradual takeoff world, you get a lot of warning shots. There will just generally be awareness of the fact that the alignment problem is a real thing and you won’t have the situation you have right now of people saying this thing about worrying about superintelligent AI systems not doing what we want is totally bullshit. That won’t be a thing. Almost everyone will not be saying that anymore, in the version where we’re right and there is a problem. As a result, people will not want to build AI systems that are going to kill them. People tend to be pretty risk averse in my estimation of the world, which Buck will probably disagree with. And as a result, you’ll get a lot of people trying to actually work on solving the alignment problem. There’ll be some amount of global coordination which will give us more time to solve the alignment problem than we may otherwise have had. And together, these forces mean that probably we’ll be okay.

Buck Shlegeris: So I think my disagreements with Rohin are basically that I think fast takeoffs are more likely. I basically think there is almost surely a problem. I think that alignment might be difficult, and I’m more pessimistic about coordination. I know I said four things there, but I actually think of this as three disagreements. I want to say that “there isn’t actually a problem” is just a kind of “alignment is really easy to solve.” So then there’s three disagreements. One is gradual takeoff, another is difficulty of solving competitive prosaic alignment, and another is how good we are at coordination.

I haven’t actually written down these numbers since I last changed my mind about a lot of the inputs to them, so maybe I’m being really dumb. I guess, it feels to me that in fast takeoff worlds, we are very sad unless we have competitive alignment techniques, and so then we’re just only okay if we have these competitive alignment techniques. I guess I would say that I’m something like 30% on us having good competitive alignment techniques by the time that it’s important, which incidentally is higher than Rohin I think.

Rohin Shah: Yeah, 30 is totally within the 25th to 75th interval on the probability, which is a weird thing to be reporting. 30 might be my median, I don’t know.

Buck Shlegeris: To be clear, I’m not just including the outer alignment proportion here, which is what we were talking about before with IDA. I’m also including the inner alignment.

Rohin Shah: Yeah, 30% does seem a bit high. I think I’m a little more pessimistic.

Buck Shlegeris: So I’m like 30% that we can just solve the AI alignment problem in this excellent way, such that anyone who wants to can have very little extra cost and then make AI systems that are aligned. I feel like in worlds where we did that, it’s pretty likely that things are reasonably okay. I think that the gradual versus fast takeoff isn’t actually enormously much of a crux for me because I feel like in worlds without competitive alignment techniques and gradual takeoff, we still have a very high probability of doom. And I think that comes down to disagreements about coordination. So maybe the main important disagreement between Rohin and I is, actually how well we’ll be able to coordinate, or how strongly individual incentives will be for alignment.

Rohin Shah: I think there are other things. The reason I feel a bit more pessimistic than you in the fast takeoff world is just solving problems in advance just is really quite difficult and I really like the ability to be able to test techniques on actual AI systems. You’ll have to work with less powerful things. At some point, you do have to make the jump to more powerful things. But, still, being able to test on the less powerful things, that’s so good, so much safety from there.

Buck Shlegeris: It’s not actually clear to me that you get to test the most important parts of your safety techniques. So I think that there are a bunch of safety problems that just do not occur on dog-level AIs, and do occur on human-level AI. If there are three levels of AI, there’s a thing which is as powerful as a dog, there’s a thing which is as powerful as a human, and there’s a thing which is as powerful as a thousand John von Neumanns. In gradual takeoff world, you have a bunch of time in both of these two milestones, maybe. I guess it’s not super clear to me that you can use results on less powerful systems as that much evidence about whether your safety techniques work on drastically more powerful systems. It’s definitely somewhat helpful.

Rohin Shah: It depends what you condition on in your difference between continuous takeoff and discontinuous takeoff to say which one of them happens faster. I guess the delta between dog and human is definitely longer in gradual takeoff for sure. Okay, if that’s what you were saying, yep, I agree with that.

Buck Shlegeris: Yeah, sorry, that’s all I meant.

Rohin Shah: Cool. One thing I wanted to ask is when you say dog-level AI assistant, do you mean something like a neural net that if put in a dog’s body replacing its brain would do about as well as a dog? Because such a neural net could then be put in other environments and learn to become really good at other things, probably superhuman at many things that weren’t in the ancestral environment. Do you mean that sort of thing?

Buck Shlegeris: Yeah, that’s what I mean. Dog-level AI is probably much better than GPT2 at answering questions. I’m going to define something as dog-level AI, if it’s about as good as a dog at things which I think dogs are pretty heavily optimized for, like visual processing or motor control in novel scenarios or other things like that, that I think dogs are pretty good at.

Rohin Shah: Makes sense. So I think in that case, plausibly, dog-level AI already poses an existential risk. I can believe that too.

Buck Shlegeris: Yeah.

Rohin Shah: The AI cashier example feels like it could totally happen probably before a dog-level AI. You’ve got all of the motivation problems already at that point of the game, and I don’t know what problems you expect to see beyond then.

Buck Shlegeris: I’m more talking about whether you can test your solutions. I’m not quite sure how to say my intuitions here. I feel like there are various strategies which work for corralling dogs and which don’t work for making humans do what you want. In as much as your alignment strategy is aiming at a flavor of problem that only occurs when you have superhuman things, you don’t get to test that either way. I don’t think this is a super important point unless you think it is. I guess I feel good about moving on from here.

Rohin Shah: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Sounds good to me.

Lucas Perry: Okay, we’ve talked about what you guys have called gradual and fast takeoff scenarios, or continuous and discontinuous. Could you guys put some probabilities down on the likelihood of, and stories that you have in your head, for fast and slow takeoff scenarios?

Rohin Shah: That is a hard question. There are two sorts of reasoning I do about probabilities. One is: use my internal simulation of whatever I’m trying to predict, internally simulate what it looks like, whether it’s by my own models, is it likely? How likely is it? At what point would I be willing to bet on it. Stuff like that. And then there’s a separate extra step where I’m like, “What do other people think about this? Oh, a lot of people think this thing that I assigned one percent probability to is very likely. Hmm, I should probably not be saying one percent then.” I don’t know how to do that second part for, well, most things but especially in this setting. So I’m going to just report Rohin’s model only, which will predictably be understating the probability for fast takeoff in that if someone from MIRI were to talk to me for five hours, I would probably say a higher number for the probability of fast takeoff after that, and I know that that’s going to happen. I’m just going to ignore that fact and report my own model anyway.

On my own model, it’s something like in worlds where AGI happens soon, like in the next couple of decades, then I’m like, “Man, 95% on gradual take off.” If it’s further away, like three to five decades, then I’m like, “Some things could have changed by then, maybe I’m 80%.” And then if it’s way off into the future and centuries, then I’m like, “Ah, maybe it’s 70%, 65%.” The reason it goes down over time is just because it seems to me like if you want to argue for discontinuous takeoff, you need to posit that there’s some paradigm change in how AI progress is happening and that seems more likely the further in the future you go.

Buck Shlegeris: I feel kind of surprised that you get so low, like to 65% or 70%. I would have thought that those arguments are a strong default and then maybe at the moment where in a position that seems particularly gradual takeoff-y, but I would have thought that you over time get to 80% or something.

Rohin Shah: Yeah. Maybe my internal model is like, “Holy shit, why do these MIRI people keep saying that discontinuous takeoff is so obvious.” I agree that the arguments in Paul’s posts feel very compelling to me and so maybe I should just be more confident in them. I think saying 80%, even in centuries is plausibly a correct answer.

Lucas Perry: So, Rohin, is the view here that since compute is the thing that’s being leveraged to make most AI advances that you would expect that to be the mechanism by which that continues to happen in the future and we have some certainty over how compute continues to change into the future? Whereas things that would be leading to a discontinuous takeoff would be world-shattering, fundamental insights into algorithms that would have powerful recursive self-improvement, which is something you wouldn’t necessarily see if we just keep going this leveraging compute route?

Rohin Shah: Yeah, I think that’s a pretty good summary. Again, on the backdrop of the default argument for this is people are really trying to build AGI. It would be pretty surprising if there is just this really important thing that everyone had just missed.

Buck Shlegeris: It sure seems like in machine learning when I look at the things which have happened over the last 20 years, all of them feel like the ideas are kind of obvious or someone else had proposed them 20 years earlier. ConvNets were proposed 20 years before they were good on ImageNet, and LSTMs were ages before they were good for natural language, and so on and so on and so on. Other subjects are not like this, like in physics sometimes they just messed around for 50 years before they knew what was happening. I don’t know, I feel confused how to feel about the fact that in some subjects, it feels like they just do suddenly get better at things for reasons other than having more compute.

Rohin Shah: I think physics, at least, was often bottlenecked by measurements, I want to say.

Buck Shlegeris: Yes, so this is one reason I’ve been interested in history of science recently, but there are certainly a bunch of things. People were interested in chemistry for a long time and it turns out that chemistry comes from quantum mechanics and you could, theoretically, have guessed quantum mechanics 70 years earlier than people did if you were smart enough. It’s not that complicated a hypothesis to think of. Or relativity is the classic example of something which could have been invented 50 years earlier. I don’t know, I would love to learn more about this.

Lucas Perry: Just to tie this back to the question, could you give your probabilities as well?

Buck Shlegeris: Oh, geez, I don’t know. Honestly, right now I feel like I’m 70% gradual takeoff or something, but I don’t know. I might change my mind if I think about this for another hour. And there’s also theoretical arguments as well for why most takeoffs are gradual, like the stuff in Paul’s post. The easiest summary is, before someone does something really well, someone else does it kind of well in cases where a lot of people are trying to do the thing.

Lucas Perry: Okay. One facet of this, that I haven’t heard discussed, is recursive self-improvement, and I’m confused about where that becomes the thing that affects whether it’s discontinuous or continuous. If someone does something kind of well before something does something really well, if recursive self-improvement is a property of the thing being done kind of well, is it just kind of self-improving really quickly, or?

Buck Shlegeris: Yeah. I think Paul’s post does a great job of talking about this exact argument. I think his basic claim is, which I find pretty plausible, before you have a system which is really good at self-improving, you have a system which is kind of good at self-improving, if it turns out to be really helpful to have a system be good at self-improving. And as soon as this is true, you have to posit an additional discontinuity.

Rohin Shah: One other thing I’d note is that humans are totally self improving. Productivity techniques, for example, are a form of self-improvement. You could imagine that AI systems might have advantages that humans don’t, like being able to read their own weights and edit them directly. How much of an advantage this gives to the AI system, unclear. Still, I think then I just go back to the argument that Buck already made, which is at some point you get to an AI system that is somewhat good at understanding its weights and figuring out how to edit them, and that happens before you get the really powerful ones. Maybe this is like saying, “Well, you’ll reach human levels of self-improvement by the time you have rat-level AI or something instead of human-level AI,” which argues that you’ll hit this hyperbolic point of the curve earlier, but it still looks like a hyperbolic curve that’s still continuous at every point.

Buck Shlegeris: I agree.

Lucas Perry: I feel just generally surprised about your probabilities on continuous takeoff scenarios that they’d be slow.

Rohin Shah: The reason I’m trying to avoid the word slow and fast is because they’re misleading. Slow takeoff is not slow in calendar time relative to fast takeoff. The question is, is there a spike at some point? Some people, upon reading Paul’s posts are like, “Slow takeoff is faster than fast takeoff.” That’s a reasonably common reaction to it.

Buck Shlegeris: I would put it as slow takeoff is the claim that things are insane before you have the human-level AI.

Rohin Shah: Yeah.

Lucas Perry: This seems like a helpful perspective shift on this takeoff scenario question. I have not read Paul’s post. What is it called so that we can include it in the page for this podcast?

Rohin Shah: It’s just called Takeoff Speeds. Then the corresponding AI Impacts post is called Will AI See Discontinuous Progress?, I believe.

Lucas Perry: So if each of you guys had a lot more reach and influence and power and resources to bring to the AI alignment problem right now, what would you do?

Rohin Shah: I get this question a lot and my response is always, “Man, I don’t know.” It seems hard to scalably use people right now for AI risk. I can talk about which areas of research I’d like to see more people focus on. If you gave me people where I’m like, “I trust your judgment on your ability to do good conceptual work” or something, where would I put them? I think a lot of it would be on making good robust arguments for AI risk. I don’t think we really have them, which seems like kind of a bad situation to be in. I think I would also invest a lot more in having good introductory materials, like this review, except this review is a little more aimed at people who are already in the field. It is less aimed at people who are trying to enter the field. I think we just have pretty terrible resources for people coming into the field and that should change.

Buck Shlegeris: I think that our resources are way better than they used to be.

Rohin Shah: That seems true.

Buck Shlegeris: In the course of my work, I talk to a lot of people who are new to AI alignment about it and I would say that their level of informedness is drastically better now than it was two years ago. A lot of which is due to things like 80,000 hours podcast, and other things like this podcast and the Alignment Newsletter, and so on. I think we just have made it somewhat easier for people to get into everything. The Alignment Forum, having its sequences prominently displayed, and so on.

Rohin Shah: Yeah, you named literally all of the things I would have named. Buck definitely has more information on this than I do. I do not work with people who are entering the field as much. I do think we could be substantially better.

Buck Shlegeris: Yes. I feel like I do have access to resources, not directly but in the sense that I know people at eg Open Philanthropy and the EA Funds  and if I thought there were obvious things they should do, I think it’s pretty likely that those funders would have already made them happen. And I occasionally embark on projects myself that I think are good for AI alignment, mostly on the outreach side. On a few occasions over the last year, I’ve just done projects that I was optimistic about. So I don’t think I can name things that are just shovel-ready opportunities for someone else to do, which is good news because it’s mostly because I think most of these things are already being done.

I am enthusiastic about workshops. I help run with MIRI these AI Risks for Computer Scientists workshops and I ran my own computing workshop with some friends, with kind of a similar purpose, aimed at people who are interested in this kind of stuff and who would like to spend some time learning more about it. I feel optimistic about this kind of project as a way of doing the thing Rohin was saying, making it easier for people to start having really deep thoughts about a lot of AI alignment stuff. So that’s a kind of direction of projects that I’m pretty enthusiastic about. A couple other random AI alignment things I’m optimistic about. I’ve already mentioned that I think there should be an Ought competitor just because it seems like the kind of thing that more work could go into. I agree with Rohin on it being good to have more conceptual analysis of a bunch of this stuff. I’m generically enthusiastic about there being more high quality research done and more smart people, who’ve thought about this a lot, working on it as best as they can.

Rohin Shah: I think the actual bottleneck is good research and not necessarily field building, and I’m more optimistic about good research. Specifically, I am particularly interested in universality, interpretability. I would love for there to be some way to give people who work on AI alignment the chance to step back and think about the high-level picture for a while. I don’t know if people don’t do this because they don’t want to or because they don’t feel like they have the affordance to do so, and I would like the affordance to be there. I’d be very interested in people building models of what AGI systems could look like. Expected utility maximizers are one example of a model that you could have. Maybe we just try to redo evolution. We just create a very complicated, diverse environment with lots of agents going around and in their multi-agent interaction, they develop general intelligence somehow. I’d be interested for someone to take that scenario, flesh it out more, and then talk about what the alignment problem looks like in that setting.

Buck Shlegeris: I would love to have someone get really knowledgeable about evolutionary biology and try and apply analogies of that to AI alignment. I think that evolutionary biology has lots of smart things to say about what optimizers are and it’d be great to have those insights. I think Eliezer sort of did this many years ago. It would be good for more people to do this in my opinion.

Lucas Perry: All right. We’re in the home stretch here. AI timelines. What do you think about the current state of predictions? There’s been surveys that have been done with people giving maybe 50% probability over most researchers at about 2050 or so. What are each of your AI timelines? What’s your probability distribution look like? What do you think about the state of predictions on this?

Rohin Shah: Haven’t looked at the state of predictions in a while. It depends on who was surveyed. I think most people haven’t thought about it very much and I don’t know if I expect their predictions to be that good, but maybe wisdom of the crowds is a real thing. I don’t think about it very much. I mostly use my inside view and talk to a bunch of people. Maybe, median, 30 years from now, which is 2050. So I guess I agree with them, don’t I? That feels like an accident. The surveys were not an input into this process.

Lucas Perry: Okay, Buck?

Buck Shlegeris: I don’t know what I think my overall timelines are. I think AI in the next 10 or 20 years is pretty plausible. Maybe I want to give it something around 50% which puts my median at around 2040. In terms of the state of things that people have said about AI timelines, I have had some really great conversations with people about their research on AI timelines which hasn’t been published yet. But at some point in the next year, I think it’s pretty likely that much better stuff about AI timelines modeling will have been published than has currently been published, so I’m excited for that.

Lucas Perry: All right. Information hazards. Originally, there seemed to be a lot of worry in the community about information hazards and even talking about superintelligence and being afraid of talking to anyone in positions of power, whether they be in private institutions or in government, about the strategic advantage of AI, about how one day it may confer a decisive strategic advantage. The dissonance here for me is that Putin comes out and says that who controls AI will control the world. Nick Bostrom published Superintelligence, which basically says what I already said. Max Tegmark’s Life 3.0 basically also. My initial reaction and intuition is the cat’s out of the bag. I don’t think that echoing this increases risks any further than the risk is already at. But maybe you disagree.

Buck Shlegeris: Yeah. So here are two opinions I have about info hazards. One is: how bad is it to say stuff like that all over the internet? My guess is it’s mildly bad because I think that not everyone thinks those things. I think that even if you could get those opinions as consequences from reading Superintelligence, I think that most people in fact have not read Superintelligence. Sometimes there are ideas where I just really don’t want them to be crystallized common knowledge. I think that, to a large extent, assuming gradual takeoff worlds, it kind of doesn’t matter because AI systems are going to be radically transforming the world inevitably. I guess you can affect how governments think about it, but it’s a bit different there.

The other point I want to make about info hazards is I think there are a bunch of trickinesses with AI safety, where thinking about AI safety makes you think about questions about how AI development might go. I think that thinking about how AI development is going to go occasionally leads to think about things that are maybe, could be, relevant to capabilities, and I think that this makes it hard to do research because you then get scared about talking about them.

Rohin Shah: So I think my take on this is info hazards are real in the sense that there, in fact, are costs to saying specific kinds of information and publicizing them a bit. I think I’ll agree in principle that some kinds of capabilities information has the cost of accelerating timelines. I usually think these are pretty strongly outweighed by the benefits in that it just seems really hard to be able to do any kind of shared intellectual work when you’re constantly worried about what you do and don’t make public. It really seems like if you really want to build a shared understanding within the field of AI alignment, that benefit is worth saying things that might be bad in some other ways. This depends on a lot of background facts that I’m not going to cover here but, for example, I probably wouldn’t say the same thing about bio security.

Lucas Perry: Okay. That makes sense. Thanks for your opinions on this. So at the current state in time, do you guys think that people should be engaging with people in government or in policy spheres on questions of AI alignment?

Rohin Shah: Yes, but not in the sense of we’re worried about when AGI comes. Even saying things like it might be really bad, as opposed to saying it might kill everybody, seems not great. Mostly on the basis of my model for what it takes to get governments to do things is, at the very least, you need consensus in the field so it seems kind of pointless to try right now. It might even be poisoning the well for future efforts. I think it does make sense to engage with government and policymakers about things that are in fact problems right now. To the extent that you think that recommender systems are causing a lot of problems, I think it makes sense to engage with government about how alignment-like techniques can help with that, especially if you’re doing a bunch of specification learning-type stuff. That seems like the sort of stuff that should have relevance today and I think it would be great if those of us who did specification learning were trying to use it to improve existing systems.

Buck Shlegeris: This isn’t my field. I trust the judgment of a lot of other people. I think that it’s plausible that it’s worth building relationships with governments now, not that I know what I’m talking about. I will note that I basically have only seen people talk about how to do AI governance in the cases where the AI safety problem is 90th percentile easiest. I basically only see people talking about it in the case where the technical safety problem is pretty doable, and this concerns me. I’ve just never seen anyone talk about what you do in a world where you’re as pessimistic as I am, except to completely give up.

Lucas Perry: All right. Wrapping up here, is there anything else that we didn’t talk about that you guys think was important? Or something that we weren’t able to spend enough time on, that you would’ve liked to spend more time on?

Rohin Shah: I do want to eventually continue the conversation with Buck about coordination, but that does seem like it should happen not on this podcast.

Buck Shlegeris: That’s what I was going to say too. Something that I want someone to do is write a trajectory for how AI goes down, that is really specific about what the world GDP is in every one of the years from now until insane intelligence explosion. And just write down what the world is like in each of those years because I don’t know how to write an internally consistent, plausible trajectory. I don’t know how to write even one of those for anything except a ridiculously fast takeoff. And this feels like a real shame.

Rohin Shah: That seems good to me as well. And also the sort of thing that I could not do because I don’t know economics.

Lucas Perry: All right, so let’s wrap up here then. So if listeners are interested in following either of you or seeing more of your blog posts or places where you would recommend they read more materials on AI alignment, where can they do that? We’ll start with you, Buck.

Buck Shlegeris: You can Google me and find my website. I often post things on the Effective Altruism Forum. If you want to talk to me about AI alignment in person, perhaps you should apply to the AI Risks for Computer Scientists workshops run by MIRI.

Lucas Perry: And Rohin?

Rohin Shah: I write the Alignment Newsletter. That’s a thing that you could sign up for. Also on my website, if you Google Rohin Shah Alignment Newsletter, I’m sure I will come up. These are also cross posted to the Alignment Forum, so another thing you can do is go to the Alignment Forum, look up my username and just see things that are there. I don’t know that this is actually the thing that you want to be doing. If you’re new to AI safety and want to learn more about it, I would echo the resources Buck mentioned earlier, which are the 80k podcasts about AI alignment. There are probably on the order of five of these. There’s the Alignment Newsletter. There are the three recommended sequences on the Alignment Forum. Just go to alignmentforum.org and look under recommended sequences. And this podcast, of course.

Lucas Perry: All right. Heroic job, everyone. This is going to be a really good resource, I think. It’s given me a lot of perspective on how thinking has changed over the past year or two.

Buck Shlegeris: And we can listen to it again in a year and see how dumb we are.

Lucas Perry: Yeah. There were lots of predictions and probabilities given today, so it’ll be interesting to see how things are in a year or two from now. That’ll be great. All right, so cool. Thank you both so much for coming on.

End of recorded material

AI Alignment Podcast: On Lethal Autonomous Weapons with Paul Scharre

 Topics discussed in this episode include:

  • What autonomous weapons are and how they may be used
  • The debate around acceptable and unacceptable uses of autonomous weapons
  • Degrees and kinds of ways of integrating human decision making in autonomous weapons 
  • Risks and benefits of autonomous weapons
  • An arms race for autonomous weapons
  • How autonomous weapons issues may matter for AI alignment and long-term AI safety

Timestamps: 

0:00 Intro

3:50 Why care about autonomous weapons?

4:31 What are autonomous weapons? 

06:47 What does “autonomy” mean? 

09:13 Will we see autonomous weapons in civilian contexts? 

11:29 How do we draw lines of acceptable and unacceptable uses of autonomous weapons? 

24:34 Defining and exploring human “in the loop,” “on the loop,” and “out of loop” 

31:14 The possibility of generating international lethal laws of robotics

36:15 Whether autonomous weapons will sanitize war and psychologically distance humans in detrimental ways

44:57 Are persons studying the psychological aspects of autonomous weapons use? 

47:05 Risks of the accidental escalation of war and conflict 

52:26 Is there an arms race for autonomous weapons? 

01:00:10 Further clarifying what autonomous weapons are

01:05:33 Does the successful regulation of autonomous weapons matter for long-term AI alignment considerations?

01:09:25 Does Paul see AI as an existential risk?

 

We hope that you will continue to join in the conversations by following us or subscribing to our podcasts on Youtube, Spotify, SoundCloud, iTunes, Google Play, StitcheriHeartRadio, or your preferred podcast site/application. You can find all the AI Alignment Podcasts here.

You can listen to the podcast above or read the transcript below. 

Lucas Perry: Welcome to the AI Alignment Podcast. I’m Lucas Perry. Today’s conversation is with Paul Scharre and explores the issue of lethal autonomous weapons. And so just what is the relation of lethal autonomous weapons and the related policy and governance issues to AI alignment and long-term AI risk? Well there’s a key question to keep in mind throughout this entire conversation and it’s that: if we cannot establish a governance mechanism as a global community on the concept that we should not let AI make the decision to kill, then how can we deal with more subtle near term issues and eventual long term safety issues about AI systems? This question is aimed at exploring the idea that autonomous weapons and their related governance represent a possibly critical first step on the international cooperation and coordination of global AI issues. If we’re committed to developing beneficial AI and eventually beneficial AGI then how important is this first step in AI governance and what precedents and foundations will it lay for future AI efforts and issues? So it’s this perspective that I suggest keeping in mind throughout the conversation. And many thanks to FLI’s Emilia Javorsky for much help on developing the questions for this podcast. 

Paul Scharre is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Technology and National Security Program at the Center for a New American Security. He is the award-winning author of Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War, which won the 2019 Colby Award and was named one of Bill Gates’ top five books of 2018.

Mr. Scharre worked in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) where he played a leading role in establishing policies on unmanned and autonomous systems and emerging weapons technologies. Mr. Scharre led the DoD working group that drafted DoD Directive 3000.09, establishing the Department’s policies on autonomy in weapon systems. Mr. Scharre also led DoD efforts to establish policies on intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) programs and directed energy technologies. He was involved in the drafting of policy guidance in the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance, 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, and Secretary-level planning guidance. His most recent position was Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Prior to joining the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Scharre served as a special operations reconnaissance team leader in the Army’s 3rd Ranger Battalion and completed multiple tours to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Future of Life Institute is a non-profit and this podcast is funded and supported by listeners like you. So if you find what we do on this podcast to be important and beneficial, please consider supporting the podcast by donating at futureoflife.org/donate. If you support any other content creators via services like Patreon, consider viewing a regular subscription to FLI in the same light. You can also follow us on your preferred listening platform, like on Apple Podcasts or Spotify, by searching for us directly or following the links on the page for this podcast found in the description.

And with that, here’s my conversion with Paul Scharre. 

All right. So we’re here today to discuss your book, Army of None, and issues related to autonomous weapons in the 21st century. To start things off here, I think we can develop a little bit of the motivations for why this matters. Why should the average person care about the development and deployment of lethal autonomous weapons?

Paul Scharre: I think the most basic reason is because we all are going to live in the world that militaries are going to be deploying future weapons. Even if you don’t serve in the military, even if you don’t work on issues surrounding say, conflict, this kind of technology could affect all of us. And so I think we all have a stake in what this future looks like.

Lucas Perry: Let’s clarify a little bit more about what this technology actually looks like then. Often in common media, and for most people who don’t know about lethal autonomous weapons or killer robots, the media often portrays it as a terminator like scenario. So could you explain why this is wrong, and what are more accurate ways of communicating with the public about what these weapons are and the unique concerns that they pose?

Paul Scharre: Yes, I mean, the Terminator is like the first thing that comes up because it’s such a common pop culture reference. It’s right there in people’s minds. So I think go ahead and for the listeners, imagine that humanoid robot in the Terminator, and then just throw that away, because that’s not what we’re talking about. Let me make a different comparison. Self-driving cars. We are seeing right now the evolution of automobiles that with each generation of car incorporate more autonomous features: parking, intelligent cruise control, automatic braking. These increasingly autonomous features in cars that are added every single year, a little more autonomy, a little more autonomy, are taking us down at some point in time to a road of having fully autonomous cars that would drive themselves. We have something like the Google car where there’s no steering wheel at all. People are just passengers along for the ride. We’re seeing something very similar happen in the military with each generation of robotic systems and we now have air and ground and undersea robots deployed all around the world in over 100 countries and non state groups around the globe with some form of drones or robotic systems, and with each generation they’re becoming increasingly autonomous.

Now, the issue surrounding autonomous weapons is, what happens when a predator drone has as much autonomy as a self-driving car? What happens when you have a weapon that’s out in the battlefield, and it’s making its own decisions about whom to kill? Is that something that we’re comfortable with? What are the legal and moral and ethical ramifications of this? And the strategic implications? What might they do for the balance of power between nations, or stability among countries? These are really the issues surrounding autonomous weapons, and it’s really about this idea that we might have, at some point of time and perhaps the not very distant future, machines making their own decisions about whom to kill on the battlefield.

Lucas Perry: Could you unpack a little bit more about what autonomy really is or means because it seems to me that it’s more like an aggregation of a bunch of different technologies like computer vision and image recognition, and other kinds of machine learning that are aggregated together. So could you just develop a little bit more about where we are in terms of the various technologies required for autonomy?

Paul Scharre: Yes, so autonomy is not really a technology, it’s an attribute of a machine or of a person. And autonomy is about freedom. It’s the freedom that a machine or a person is given to perform some tasks in some environment for some period of time. As people, we have very little autonomy as children and more autonomy as we grow up, we have different autonomy in different settings. In some work environments, there might be more constraints put on you; what things you can and cannot do. And it’s also environment-specific and task-specific. You might have autonomy to do certain things, but not other things. It’s the same with machines. We’re ultimately talking about giving freedom to machines to perform certain actions under certain conditions in certain environments.

There are lots of simple forms of autonomy that we interact with all the time that we sort of take for granted. A thermostat is a very simple autonomous system, it’s a machine that’s given a freedom to decide… decide, let’s put that in air quotes, because we come back to what it means for machines to decide. But basically, the thermostat is given the ability to turn on and off the heat and air conditioning based on certain parameters that a human sets, a desired temperature, or if you have a programmable thermostat, maybe the desired temperature at certain times a day or days of the week, is a very bounded kind of autonomy. And that’s what we’re talking about for any of these machines. We’re not talking about freewill, or whether the machine develops consciousness. That’s not a problem today, maybe someday, but certainly not with the machines we’re talking about today. It’s a question really of, how much freedom do we want to give machines, or in this case, weapons operating on the battlefield to make certain kinds of choices?

Now we’re still talking about weapons that are designed by people, built by people, launched by people, and put into the battlefields to perform some mission, but there might be a little bit less human control than there is today. And then there are a whole bunch of questions that come along with that, like, is it going to work? Would it be effective? What happens if there are accidents? Are we comfortable with seeding that degree of control over to the machine?

Lucas Perry: You mentioned the application of this kind of technology in the context of battlefields. Is there also consideration and interest in the use of lethal autonomous weapons in civilian contexts?

Paul Scharre: Yes, I mean, I think there’s less energy on that topic. You certainly see less of a poll from the police community. I mean, I don’t really run into people in a police or Homeland Security context, saying we should be building autonomous weapons. Well, you will hear that from militaries. Oftentimes, groups that are concerned about the humanitarian consequences of autonomous weapons will raise that as a concern. There’s both what might militaries do in the battlefield, but then there’s a concern about proliferation. What happens when the technology proliferates, and it’s being used for internal security issues, could be a dictator, using these kinds of weapons to repress the population. That’s one concern. And that’s, I think, a very, very valid one. We’ve often seen one of the last checks against dictators, is when they tell their internal security forces to fire on civilians, on their own citizens. There have been instances where the security forces say, “No, we won’t.” That doesn’t always happen. Of course, tragically, sometimes security forces do attack their citizens. We saw in the massacre in Tiananmen Square that Chinese military troops are willing to murder Chinese citizens. But we’ve seen other instances, certainly in the fall of the Eastern Bloc at the end of the Cold War, that security forces… these are our friends, these are our family. We’re not going to kill them.

And autonomous weapons could take away one of those checks on dictators. So I think that’s a very valid concern. And that is a more general concern about the proliferation of military technology into policing even here in America. We’ve seen this in the last 20 years, is a lot of military tech ends up being used by police forces in ways that maybe isn’t appropriate. And so that’s, I think, a very valid and legitimate sort of concern about… even if this isn’t kind of the intended use, what would that look like and what are the risks that could come with that, and how should we think about those kinds of issues as well?

Lucas Perry: All right. So we’re developing autonomy in systems and there’s concern about how this autonomy will be deployed in context where lethal force or force may be used. So the question then arises and is sort of the question at the heart of lethal autonomous weapons: Where is it that we will draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable uses of artificial intelligence in autonomous weapons or in the military, or in civilian policing? So I’m curious to know how you think about where to draw those lines or that line in particular, and how you would suggest to any possible regulators who might be listening, how to think about and construct lines of acceptable and unacceptable uses of AI.

Paul Scharre: That’s a great question. So I think let’s take a step back first and sort of talk about, what would be the kinds of things that would make uses acceptable or unacceptable. Let’s just talk about the military context just to kind of bound the problem for a second. So in the military context, you have a couple reasons for drawing lines, if you will. One is legal issues, legal concerns. We have a legal framework to think about right and wrong in war. It’s called the laws of war or international humanitarian law. And it lays out a set of parameters for what is acceptable and what… And so that’s one of the places where there has been consensus internationally, among countries that come together at the United Nations through the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the CCW, the process, we’ve had conversations going on about autonomous weapons.

One of the points of consensus among nations is that existing international humanitarian law or the laws of war would apply to autonomous weapons. And that any uses of autonomy in weapons, those weapons have to be used in a manner that complies with the laws of war. Now, that may sound trivial, but it’s a pretty significant point of agreement and it’s one that places some bounds on things that you can or cannot do. So, for example, one of the baseline principles of the laws of war is the principle of distinction. Military forces cannot intentionally target civilians. They can only intentionally target other military forces. And so any use of force these people to comply with this distinction, so right off the bat, that’s a very important and significant one when it comes to autonomous weapons. So if you have to use a weapon that could not be used in a way to comply with this principle of distinction, it would be illegal under the laws war and you wouldn’t be able to build it.

And there are other principles as well, principles about proportionality, and ensuring that any collateral damage that affects civilians or civilian infrastructure is not disproportionate to the military necessity of the target that is being attacked. There are principles about avoiding unnecessary suffering of combatants. Respecting anyone who’s rendered out of combat or the appropriate term is “hors de combat,” who surrendered have been incapacitated and not targeting them. So these are like very significant rules that any weapon system, autonomous weapon or not, has to comply with. And any use of any weapon has to comply with, any use of force. And so that is something that constrains considerably what nations are permitted to do in a lawful fashion. Now do people break the laws of war? Well, sure, that happens. We’re seeing that happen in Syria today, Bashar al-Assad is murdering civilians, there are examples of Rogue actors and non state terrorist groups and others that don’t care about respecting the laws of war. But those are very significant bounds.

Now, one could also say that there are more bounds that we should put on autonomous weapons that might be moral or ethical considerations that exist outside the laws of war, that aren’t written down in a formal way in the laws of war, but they’re still important and I think those often come to the fore with this topic. And there are other ones that might apply in terms of reasons why we might be concerned about stability among nations. But the laws of war, at least a very valuable starting point for this conversation about what is acceptable and not acceptable. I want to make clear, I’m not saying that the laws of war are insufficient, and we need to go beyond them and add in additional constraints. I’m actually not saying that. There are people that make that argument, and I want to give credit to their argument, and not pretend it doesn’t exist. I want the listeners to sort of understand the full scope of arguments about this technology. But I’m not saying myself that’s the case necessarily. But I do think that there are concerns that people raise.

For example, people might say it’s wrong for a machine to decide whom to kill, it’s wrong for a machine to make the decision about life and death. Now I think that’s an interesting argument. Why? Why is it wrong? Is it because we think the machine might get the answer wrong, it might perform not as well as the humans because I think that there’s something intrinsic about weighing the value of life and death that we want humans to do, and appreciating the value of another person’s life before making one of these decisions. Those are all very valid counter arguments that exist in this space.

Lucas Perry: Yes. So thanks for clarifying that. For listeners, it’s important here to clarify the difference where some people you’re saying would find the laws of war to be sufficient in the case of autonomous weapons, and some would not.

Paul Scharre: Yes, I mean, this is a hotly debated issue. I mean, this is in many ways, the crux of the issue surrounding autonomous weapons. I’m going to oversimplify a bit because you have a variety of different views on this, but you certainly have some people whose views are, look, we have a set of structures called the laws of war that tell us what right and wrong looks like and more. And most of the things that people are worried about are already prohibited under the laws of war. So for example, if what you’re worried about is autonomous weapons, running amok murdering civilians, that’s illegal under the laws of war. And so one of the points of pushback that you’ll sometimes get from governments or others to the idea of creating like an ad hoc treaty that would ban autonomous weapons or some class of autonomous weapons, is look, some of the things people worry about like they’re already prohibited under the laws of war, passing another law to say the thing that’s already illegal is now illegal again doesn’t add any value.

There’s group of arguments that says the laws of war dictate effects in the battlefield. So they dictate sort of what the end effect is, they don’t really affect the process. And there’s a line of reasoning that says, that’s fine. The process doesn’t matter. If someday we could use autonomous weapons in a way that was more humane and more precise than people, then we should use them. And just the same way that self-driving cars will someday save lives on roads by avoiding accidents, maybe we could build autonomous weapons that would avoid mistakes in war and accidentally targeting civilians, and therefore we should use them. And let’s just focus on complying better with the laws of war. That’s one school of thought.

Then there’s a whole bunch of reasons why you might say, well, that’s not enough. One reason might be, well, militaries’ compliance with the laws of war. Isn’t that great? Actually, like people talk a good game, but when you look at military practice, especially if the rules for using weapon are kind of convoluted, you have to take a bunch of additional steps in order to use it in a way that’s lawful, that kind of goes out the window in conflict. Real world and tragic historical example of this was experienced throughout the 20th century with landmines where land mines were permitted to be used lawfully, and still are, if you’re not a signatory to the Ottawa Convention, they’re permitted to be used lawfully provided you put in a whole bunch of procedures to make sure that minefields are marked and we know the location of minefields, so they can be demined after conflict.

Now, in practice, countries weren’t doing this. I mean, many of them were just scattering mines from the air. And so we had this horrific problem of millions of mines around the globe persisting after a conflict. The response was basically this global movement to ban mines entirely to say, look, it’s not that it’s inconceivable to use mines in a way that you mean, but it requires a whole bunch of additional efforts, that countries aren’t doing, and so we have to take this weapon away from countries because they are not actually using it in a way that’s responsible. That’s a school of thought with autonomous weapons. Is look, maybe you can conjure up thought experiments about how you can use autonomous weapons in these very specific instances, and it’s acceptable, but once you start any use, it’s a slippery slope, and next thing you know, it’ll be just like landmines all over again, and they’ll be everywhere and civilians will be being killed. And so the better thing to do is to just not let this process even start, and not letting militaries have access to the technology because they won’t use it responsibly, regardless of whether it’s theoretically possible. That’s a pretty reasonable and defensible argument. And there are other arguments too.

One could say, actually, it’s not just about avoiding civilian harm, but there’s something intrinsic about weighing the value of an enemy soldier’s life, that we want humans involved in that process. And that if we took humans away from that process, we’ll be losing something that sure maybe it’s not written down in the laws of war, but maybe it’s not written down because it was always implicit that humans will always be making these choices. And now that it’s decision in front of us, we should write this down, that humans should be involved in these decisions and should be weighing the value of the human life, even an enemy soldier. Because if we give that up, we might give up something that is a constraint on violence and war that holds back some of the worst excesses of violence, we might even can make something about ourselves. And this is, I think, a really tricky issue because there’s a cost to humans making these decisions. It’s a very real cost. It’s a cost in post traumatic stress that soldiers face and moral injury. It’s a cost in lives that are ruined, not just the people that are killed in a battlefield, but the people have to live with that violence afterwards, and the ramifications and even the choices that they themselves make. It’s a cost in suicides of veterans, and substance abuse and destroyed families and lives.

And so to say that we want humans to stay still evolved to be more than responsible for killing, is to say I’m choosing that cost. I’m choosing to absorb and acknowledge and take on the cost of post traumatic stress and moral injury, and also the burdens that come with war. And I think it’s worth reflecting on the fact that the burdens of war are distributed very unequally, not just between combatants, but also on the societies that fight. As a democratic nation in the United States, we make a decision as a country to go to war, through our elected representatives. And yet, it’s a very tiny slice of the population that bears the burden for that war, not just putting themselves at risk, but also carrying the moral burden of that afterwards.

And so if you say, well, I want there to be someone who’s going to live with that trauma for the rest of your life. I think that’s an argument that one can make, but you need to acknowledge that that’s real. And that’s not a burden that we all share equally, it’s a burden we’re placing on young women and men that we send off to fight on our behalf. The flip side is if we didn’t do that, if we fought a war and no one felt the moral burden of killing, no one slept uneasy at night afterwards, what would they say about us as a society? I think these are difficult questions. I don’t have easy answers to that. But I think these are challenging things for us to wrestle with.

Lucas Perry: Yes, I mean, there’s a lot there. I think that was a really good illustration of the different points of views on this. I hadn’t heard or considered much the implications of post traumatic stress. And I think moral burden, you called it that would be a factor in what autonomous weapons would relieve in countries which have the power to develop them. Speaking personally, I think I find the arguments most compelling about the necessity of having human beings integrated in the process of decision making with regards to killing, because if you remove that, then you’re removing the deep aspect of humanity, which sometimes does not follow the laws of war, which we currently don’t have complex enough preference learning techniques and machine learning techniques to actually train autonomous weapon systems in everything that human beings value and care about, and that there are situations where deviating from following the laws of war may be the best thing to do. I’m not sure if you have any thoughts about this, but I think you did a good job of illustrating all the different positions, and that’s just my initial reaction to it.

Paul Scharre: Yes, these are tricky issues. And so I think one of the things I want to try to do for listeners is try to lay out the landscape of what these arguments are, and some of the pros and cons of them because I think sometimes they will often oversimplify on all sides. The other people will be like, well, we should have humans involved in making these decisions. Well, humans involved where? If I get into a self-driving car that has no steering wheel, it’s not true that there’s no human involvement. The type of human involvement has just changed in terms of where it exists. So now, instead of manually driving the car, I’m still choosing the car’s destination, I’m still telling the car where I want to go. You’re going to get into the car and car take me wherever you want to go. So the type of human involvement is changed.

So what kind of human relationship do we want with decisions about life and death in the battlefield? What type of human involvement is right or necessary or appropriate and for what reason? For a legal reason, for a moral reason. These are interesting challenges. We haven’t had to confront anymore. These arguments I think unfairly get simplified on all sides. Conversely, you hear people say things like, it doesn’t matter, because these weapons are going to get built anyway. It’s a little bit overly simplistic in the sense that there are examples of successes in arms control. It’s hard to pull off. There are many examples of failures as well, but there are places where civilized nations have walked back from some technologies to varying degrees of success, whether it’s chemical weapons or biological weapons or other things. So what is success look like in constraining a weapon? Is it no one ever uses the weapon? Is it most nations don’t use it? It’s not used in certain ways. These are complicated issues.

Lucas Perry: Right. So let’s talk a little bit here about integrating human emotion and human reasoning and humanity itself into the autonomous weapon systems and the life or death decisions that they will be making. So hitting on a few concepts here, if you could help explain what people mean when they say human in the loop, and human on the loop, and how this relates to the integration of human control and human responsibility and human accountability in the use of autonomous weapons.

Paul Scharre: Let’s unpack some of this terminology. Broadly speaking, people tend to use the terms human in the loop, on the loop, or out of the loop to refer to semi autonomous weapons human is in the loop, which means that for any really semi autonomous process or system, the machine is taking an action and then it pauses and waits for humans to take a positive action before proceeding. A good example of a human in the loop system is the automated backups on your computer when they require you to push a button to say okay to do the backup now. They’re waiting music in action before proceeding. In a human on the loop system, or one where the supervisor control is one of the human doesn’t have to take any positive action for the system to proceed. The human can intervene, so the human can sit back, and if you want to, you can jump in.

Example of this might be your thermostat. When you’re in a house, you’ve already set the parameters, it’ll turn on the heat and air conditioning on its own, but if you’re not happy with the outcome, you could change it. Now, when you’re out of the house, your thermostat is operating in a fully autonomous fashion in this respect where humans out of the loop. You don’t have any ability to intervene for some period of time. It’s really all about time duration. For supervisory control, how much time does the human have to identify something is wrong and then intervene? So for example, things like the Tesla autopilots. That’s one where the human is in a supervisory control capacity. So the autopilot function in a car, the human doesn’t have to do anything, car’s driving itself, but they can intervene.

The problem with some of those control architectures is the time that you are permitting people to identify that there’s a problem, figure out what’s going on, decide to take action, intervene, really realistic before harm happens. Is it realistic that a human can be not paying attention, and then all of a sudden, identify that the car is in trouble and leap into action to avoid an accident when you’re speeding on the highway 70 miles an hour? And then you can see quite clearly in a number of fatal accidents with these autopilots, that that’s not feasible. People actually aren’t capable of doing that. So you’ve got to think about sort of what is the role of the human in this process? This is not just a semi autonomous or supervised autonomous or fully autonomous process. It’s one where the human is involved in some varying capacity.

And what are we expecting the human to do? Same thing with something that’s fully autonomous. We’re talking about a system that’s operating on its own for some period of time. How long before it checks back in with a person? What information is that person given? And what is their capacity to intervene or how bad could things go wrong when the person is not involved? And when we talk about weapons specifically. There are lots of weapons that operate in a semi autonomous fashion today where the human is choosing the target, but there’s a lot of automation in IDing targets presenting information to people in actually carrying out an attack, once the human has chosen a target, there are many, many weapons that are what the military calls fire and forget weapon, so once it’s launched, it’s not coming back. Those have been widely used for 70 years since World War Two. So that’s not new.

There are a whole bunch of weapons that operate in a supervisory autonomy mode, where humans on the loop. These are generally used in a more limited fashion for immediate localized defense of air bases or ships or ground vehicles defending against air or missile or rocket attack, particularly when the speed of these attacks might overwhelm people’s ability to respond. For humans to be in the loop, for humans to push a button, every time there’s a missile coming in, you could have so many missiles coming in so fast that you have to just simply activate an automatic defensive mode that will shoot down all have the missiles based on some pre-programmed parameters that humans put into the system. This exists today. The systems have been around for decades since the 1980s. And there were widespread use with at least 30 countries around the globe. So this is a type of weapon system that’s already in operation. These supervisory autonomous weapons. What really would be new would be fully autonomous weapons that operate on their own, whereas humans are still building them and launching them, but humans put them into operation, and then there’s some period of time where they were able to search a target area for targets and they were able to find these targets, and then based on some programming that was designed by people, identify the targets and attack them on their own.

Lucas Perry: Would you consider that out of the loop for that period of time?

Paul Scharre: Exactly. So over that period of time, humans are out of the loop on that decision over which targets they’re attacking. That would be potentially largely a new development in war. There are some isolated cases of some weapon systems that cross this line, by in large that would be new. That’s at least the starting point of what people might be concerned about. Now, you might envision things that are more advanced beyond that, but that’s sort of the near term development that could be on the horizon in the next five to 15 years, telling the weapon system, go into this area, fly around or search around underwater and find any ships of this type and attack them for some period of time in space. And that changes the human’s relationship with the use of force a little bit. It doesn’t mean the humans not involved at all, but the humans not quite as involved as they used to be. And is that something we’re comfortable with? And what are the implications of that kind of shift in warfare.

Lucas Perry: So the relevant things here are how this helps to integrate human control and human responsibility and human accountability into autonomous weapons systems. And just hearing you speak about all of that, it also seems like very relevant questions have to do with human psychology, about what human beings are actually likely to be able to do. And then also, I think you articulately put the practical question of whether or not people will be able to react to certain threats given certain situations. So in terms of trying to understand acceptable and unacceptable uses of autonomous weapons, that seems to supervene upon a lot of these facets of benefits and disadvantages of in the loop, on the loop, and out of the loop for different situations and different risks, plus how much we’re willing to automate killing and death and remove human decision making from some of these situations or not.

Paul Scharre: Yes, I mean, I think what’s challenging in this space is that it would be nice, it would be ideal if we could sort of reach agreement among nations for sort of a lethal laws of robotics, and Isaac Asimov’s books about robots you think of these three laws of robotics. Well, those laws aren’t going to work because one of them is not harming a human being and it’s not going to work in the military context, but could there be some agreement among countries for lethal laws of robots that would govern the behavior of autonomous systems in war, and it might sort of say, these are the things that are acceptable or not? Maybe. Maybe that’s possible someday. I think we’re not there yet at least, there are certainly not agreement as widespread disagreement among nations about what approach to take. But the good starting position of trying to understand what are the goals we want to achieve. And I think you’re right that we need to keep the human sort of front and center. But I this this is like a really important asymmetry between humans and machines that’s worth highlighting, which is to say that the laws of war government effects in the battlefield, and then in that sentence, the laws of war, don’t say the human has to pick every target, the laws of war say that the use of force must be executed according to certain principles of distinction and proportionality and other things.

One important asymmetry in the laws of war, however, is that machines are not legal agents. Only humans have legal agents. And so it’s ultimately humans that are responsible for complying with the laws of war. You can’t put a machine on trial for a war crime. It doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t have intentionality. So it’s ultimately a human responsibility to ensure this kind of compliance with the laws of war. It’s a good starting point then for conversation to try to understand if we start from that proposition that it’s a human responsibility to ensure compliance with the laws of war, then what follows from that? What balances that place on human involvement? One of the early parts of the conversations on autonomous weapons internationally came from this very technological based conversation. To say, well, based on the technology, draw these lines, you should put these limits in place. The problem with that approach is not that you can’t do it.

The problem is the state of the technology when? 2014 when discussions on autonomous weapons started at the very beginning of the deep learning revolution, today, in 2020, our estimate of whether technology might be in five years or 10 years or 50 years? The technology moving so quickly than any technologically based set of rules about how we should approach this problem and what is the appropriate use of machines versus human decision making in the use of force. Any technologically based answer is one that we may look back in 10 years or 20 years and say is wrong. We could get it wrong in the sense that we might be leaving valuable technological opportunities on the table and we’re banning technology that if we used it actually might make war more humane and reduce civilian casualties, or we might be permitting technologies that turned out in retrospect to be problematic, and we shouldn’t have done that.

And one of the things we’ve seen historically when you look at attempts to ban weapons is that ones that are technologically based don’t always fare very well over time. So for example, the early bans on poison gas banned the use of poison gas that are launched from artillery shells. It allowed actually poison gas administered via canisters, and so the first use of poison gas in World War One by the Germans was canister based, they actually just laid out little canisters and then open the valves. Now that turns out to be not very practical way of using poison gas in war, because you have someone basically on your side standing over this canister, opening a valve and then getting gassed. And so it’s a little bit tricky, but technically permissible.

One of the things that can be challenging is it’s hard to foresee how the technology is going to evolve. A better approach and one that we’ve seen the dialogue internationally sort of shift towards is our human-centered approach. To start from the position of the human and say, look, if we had all the technology in the world and war, what decisions would we want humans to make and why? Not because the technology cannot make decisions, but because it should not. I think it’s actually a very valuable starting place to understand a conversation, because the technology is moving so quickly.

What role do we want humans to play in warfare, and why do we think this is the case? Are there some tasks in war, or some decisions that we think are fundamentally human that should be decisions that only humans should make and we shouldn’t hand off to machines? I think that’s a really valuable starting position then to try to better interrogate how do we want to use this technology going forward? Because the landscape of technological opportunity is going to keep expanding. And so what do we want to do with this technology? How do we want to use it? And are there ways that we can use this technology that keeps humans in control of the use of force in the battlefield? Keep humans legally and morally and ethically responsible, but may make war more humane in the process, that may make war more precise, that may reduce civilian casualties without losing our humanity in the process.

Lucas Perry: So I guess the thought experiment, there would be like, if we had weapons that let us just delete people instantly without consequences, how would we want human decision making to be integrated with that? Reflecting on that also makes me consider this other point that I think is also important for my considerations around lethal autonomous weapons, which is the necessity of integrating human experience in the consequences of war, the pain and the suffering and the carnage and the PTSD as being almost necessary vehicles to some extent to make us tired of it to integrate how horrible it is. So I guess I would just be interested in integrating that perspective into it not just being about humans making decisions and the decisions being integrated in the execution process, but also about the experiential ramifications of being in relation to what actually happens in war and what violence is like and what happens in violence.

Paul Scharre: Well, I think that we want to unpack a little bit some of the things you’re talking about. Are we talking about ensuring that there is an accurate representation to the people carrying out the violence about what’s happening on the other end, that we’re not sanitizing things. And I think that’s a fair point. When we begin to put more psychological barriers between the person making the decision and the effects, it might be easier for them to carry out larger scale attacks, versus actually making war and more horrible. Now that’s a line of reasoning, I suppose, to say we should make war more horrible, so there’ll be less of it. I’m not sure we might get the outcome that there is less of it. We just might have more horrible war, but that’s a different issue. Those are more difficult questions.

I will say that I often hear philosophers raising things about skin in the game. I rarely hear them being raised by people who have had skin in the game, who have experienced up close in a personal way the horrors of war. And I’m less convinced that there’s a lot of good that comes from the tragedy of war. I think there’s value in us trying to think about how do we make war less terrible? How do we reduce civilian casualties? How do we have less war? But this often comes up in the context of technologies like we should somehow put ourselves at risk. No military does that, no military has ever done that in human history. The whole purpose of militaries getting technology in training is to get an advantage on the adversary. It’s not a fair fight. It’s not supposed to be, it’s not a boxing match. So these are things worth exploring. We need to come from the standpoint of the reality of what war is and not from a philosophical exercise about war might be, but deal with the realities of what actually occurs in the battlefield.

Lucas Perry: So I think that’s a really interesting point. And as someone with a background and interest in philosophy, it’s quite funny. So you do have experience in war, right?

Paul Scharre: Yes, I’ve fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Lucas Perry: Then it’s interesting for me, if you see this distinction between people who are actually veterans, who have experienced violence and carnage and tragedies of war, and the perspective here is that PTSD and associated trauma with these kinds of experiences, you find that they’re less salient for decreasing people’s willingness or decision to engage in further war. Is that your claim?

Paul Scharre: I don’t know. No, I don’t know. I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t know. That’s some difficult question for political scientists to figure out about voting preferences of veterans. All I’m saying is that I hear a lot of claims in this space that I think are often not very well interrogated or not very well explored. And there’s a real price that people pay for being involved. Now, people want to say that we’re willing to bear that price for some reason, like okay, but I think we should acknowledge it.

Lucas Perry: Yeah, that make sense. I guess the thing that I was just pointing at was it would be psychologically interesting to know if philosophers are detached from the experience, maybe they don’t actually know about the psychological implications of being involved in horrible war. And if people who are actually veterans disagree with philosophers about the importance of there being skin in the game, if philosophers say that skin in the game reduces willingness to be in war, if the claim is that that wouldn’t actually decrease their willingness to go to war. I think that seems psychologically very important and relevant, because there is this concern about how autonomous weapons and integrating human decision making to lethal autonomous weapons would potentially sanitize war. And so there’s the trade off between the potential mitigating effects of being involved in war, and then also the negative effects which are incurred by veterans who would actually have to be exposed by it and bring the trauma back for communities to have deeper experiential relation with.

Paul Scharre: Yes, and look, we don’t do that, right? We had a whole generation of veterans come back from Vietnam and we as society listen to the stories and understand them and understand, no. I have heard over the years people raise this issue whether it’s drones, autonomous weapons, this issue of having skin in the game either physically being at risk or psychologically. And I’ve rarely heard it raised by people who it’s been them who’s on the line. People often have very gut emotional reactions to this topic. And I think that’s valuable because it’s speaking to something that resonates with people, whether it’s an emotional reaction opposed to autonomous weapons, and that you often get that from many people that go, there’s something about this. It doesn’t feel right. I don’t like this idea. Or people saying, the opposite reaction. Other people that say that “wouldn’t this make war great, it’s more precise and more humane,” and which my reaction is often a little bit like… have you ever interacted with a computer? They break all the time. What are you talking about?

But all of these things I think they’re speaking to instincts that people have about this technology, but it’s worth asking questions to better understand, what is it that we’re reacting to? Is it an assumption about the technologies, is it an assumption about the nature of war? One of the concerns I’ve heard raised is like this will impersonalize war and create more distance between people killing. If you sort of buy that argument, that impersonal war is a bad thing, then you would say the greatest thing would be deeply personal war, like hand to hand combat. It appears to harken back to some glorious age of war when people looked each other in the eye and hacked each other to bits with swords, like real humans. That’s not that that war never occurred in human history. In fact, we’ve had conflicts like that, even in recent memory that involve hand to hand weapons. They tend not to be very humane conflicts. When we see civil violence, when people are murdering each other with machetes or garden tools or other things, it tends to be horrific communal violence, mass atrocities in Rwanda or Cambodia or other places. So I think it’s important to deal with the reality of what war is and not some fantasy.

Lucas Perry: Yes, I think that that makes a lot of sense. It’s really tricky. And the psychology around this I think is difficult and probably not studied enough.

Paul Scharre: There’s real war that occurs in the world, and then there’s the fantasy of war that we, as a society, tell ourselves when we go to movie theaters, and we watch stories about soldiers who are heroes, who conquer the bad guys. We’re told a fantasy, and it’s a fantasy as a society that allows society to perpetuate wars, that allows us to send young men and women off to die. And it’s not to say that there are no circumstances in which a nation might need to go to war to defend itself or its interest, but we sort of dress war up in these pretty clothes, and let’s not confuse that with the reality of what actually occurs. People said, well, through autonomous weapons, then we won’t have people sort of weighing the value of life and death. I mean, it happens sometimes, but it’s not like every time someone dies in war, that there was this thoughtful exercise where a committee sat around and said, “Do we really need to kill this person? Is it really appropriate?” There’s a lot of dehumanization that goes on on the battlefield. So I think this is what makes this issue very challenging. Many of the objections to autonomous weapons are objections to war. That’s what people are actually objecting to.

The question isn’t, is war bad? Of course war’s terrible? The question is sort of, how do we find ways going forward to use technology that may make war more precise and more humane without losing our humanity in the process, and are ways to do that? It’s a challenging question. I think the answer is probably yes, but it’s one that’s going to require a lot of interrogation to try to get there. It’s a difficult issue because it’s also a dynamic process where there’s an interplay between competitors. If we get this wrong, we can easily end up in a situation where there’s less human control, there’s more violence and war. There are lots of opportunities to make things worse as well.

If we could make war perfect, that would be great, in terms of no civilian suffering and reduce the suffering of enemy combatants and the number of lives lost. If we could push a button and make war go away, that would be wonderful. Those things will all be great. The more practical question really is, can we improve upon the status quo and how can we do so in a thoughtful way, or at least not make things worse than today? And I think those are hard enough problems to try to address.

Lucas Perry: I appreciate that you bring a very holistic, well-weighed perspective to the varying sides of this issue. So these are all very big and difficult. Are you aware of people actually studying whether some of these effects exist or not, and whether they would actually sanitize things or not? Or is this basically all just coming down to people’s intuitions and simulations in their head?

Paul Scharre: Some of both. There’s really great scholarship that’s being done on autonomous weapons, certainly there’s a robust array of legal based scholarship, people trying to understand how the law of war might interface with autonomous weapons. But there’s also been worked on by thinking about some of these human psychological interactions, Missy Cummings, who’s at Duke who runs the humans and automation lab down has done some work on human machine interfaces on weapon systems to think through some of these concerns. I think probably less attention paid to the human machine interface dimension of this and the human psychological dimension of it. But there’s been a lot of work done by people like Heather Roth, people at Article 36, and others thinking about concepts of meaningful human control and what might look like in weapon systems.

I think one of the things that’s challenging across the board in this issue is that it is a politically contentious topic. You have kind of levels of this debate going on, you have scholars trying to sort of understand the issue maybe, and then you also have a whole array of politically motivated groups, international organizations, civil society organizations, countries, duking it out basically, at the UN and in the media about where we should go with this technology. As you get a lot of motivated reasoning on all sides about what should the answer be. So for example, one of the things that fascinates me is i’ll often hear people say, autonomous weapons are terrible, and they’ll have a terrible outcome, and we need to ban them now. And if we just pass a treaty and we have enough political will we could ban them. I’ll also hear people say a ban would be pointless, it wouldn’t work. And anyways, wouldn’t autonomous weapons be great? There are other possible beliefs. One could say that a ban is feasible, but the weapons aren’t that big of a deal. So it just seems to me like there’s a lot of politically motivated reasoning that goes on this debate, which makes it very challenging.

Lucas Perry: So one of the concerns around autonomous weapons has to do with accidental escalation of warfare and conflict. Could you explore this point and explain what some strategies might be to prevent accidental escalation of warfare as AI is increasingly being used in the military?

Paul Scharre: Yes, so I think in general, you could bucket maybe concerns about autonomous weapons into two categories. One is a concern that they may not function very well and could have accidents, those accidents could lead to civilian casualties, that could lead to accidental escalation among nations and a crisis, military force forces operating in close proximity to one another and there could be accidents. This happens with people. And you might worry about actions with autonomous systems and maybe one shoots down an enemy aircraft and there’s an escalation and people are killed. And then how do you unwind that? How do you communicate to your adversary? We didn’t mean to do that. We’re sorry. How do you do that in a period of tension? That’s a particular challenge.

There’s a whole other set of challenges that come from the weapons might work. And that might get to some of these deeper questions about the role of humans in decision making about life and death. But this issue of accidental escalation kind of comes into the category of they don’t work very well, then they’re not reliable. And this is the case for a lot of AI and autonomous technology today, which isn’t to say it doesn’t work at all, if it didn’t work at all, it would be much easier. There’d be no debates about bias and facial recognition systems if they never identify faces. There’d be no debates about safety with self-driving cars if the car couldn’t go anywhere. The problem is that a lot of these AI based systems work very well in some settings, and then if the settings change ever so slightly, they don’t work very well at all anymore. And the performance can drop off very dramatically, and they’re not very robust to changes in environmental conditions. So this is a huge problem for the military, because in particular, the military doesn’t get to test its systems in its actual operating environment.

So you can take a car, and you can take it on the roads, and you can test it in an actual driving environment. And we’ve seen car companies rack up 10 million miles or more of driving data. And then they can go back and they can run simulations. So Waymo has said that they run 10 million miles of simulated driving every single day. And they can simulate in different lighting conditions, in different environmental conditions. Well, the military can build simulations too, but simulations of what? What will the next war look like? Well we don’t know because we haven’t fought it yet. The good news is that war’s very rare, which is great. But that also means that for these kinds of systems, we don’t necessarily know the operating conditions that they’ll be in, and so there is this real problem of this risk of accidents. And it’s exacerbated in the fact that this is also a very adversarial environment. So you actually have an enemy who’s trying to trick your system and manipulate it. That’s adds another layer of complications.

Driving is a little bit competitive, maybe somebody doesn’t want to let you into the lane, but the pedestrians aren’t generally trying to get hit by cars. That’s a whole other complication in the military space. So all of that leads to concerns that the systems may do okay in training, and then we take them out in the real world, and they fail and they fail a pretty bad way. If it’s a weapon system that is making its own decisions about whom to kill, it could be that it fails in a benign way, then it targets nothing. And that’s a problem for the military who built it, or fails in a more hazardous way, in a dangerous way and attacks the wrong targets. And when we’re talking about an autonomous weapon, the essence of this autonomous weapon is making its own decisions about which targets to attack and then carrying out those attacks. If you get that wrong, those could be pretty significant consequences with that. One of those things could be civilian harm. And that’s a major concern. There are processes in place for printing that operationally and test and evaluation, are those sufficient? I think they’re good reasons to say that maybe they’re not sufficient or not completely sufficient, and they need to be revised or improved.

And I’ll point out, we can come back to this that the US Defense Department actually has a more stringent procedure in place for reviewing autonomous weapons more than other weapons, beyond what the laws of war have, the US is one of the few countries that has this. But then there’s also question about accidental escalation, which also could be the case. Would that lead to like an entire war? Probably not. But it could make things a lot harder to defuse tensions in a crisis, and that could be problematic. So we just had an incident not too long ago, where the United States carried out an attack against the very senior Iranian General, General Soleimani, who’s the head of the Iranian Quds Force and killed him in a drone strike. And that was an intentional decision made by a person somewhere in the US government.

Now, did they fully think that through? I don’t know, that’s a different question. But a human made that decision in any case. Well, that’s a huge escalation of hostilities between the US and Iraq. And there was a lot of uncertainty afterwards about what would happen and Iran launched some ballistic missiles against US troops in Iraq. And whether that’s it, or there’s more retaliation to come, I think we’ll see. But it could be a much more challenging situation, if you had a situation in the future where an autonomous weapon malfunctioned and took some action. And now the other side might feel compelled to respond. They might say, well, we have to, we can’t let this go. Because humans emotions are on the line and national pride and prestige, and they feel like they need to maintain a principle of deterrence and they need to retaliate it. So these could all be very complicated things if you had an accident with an autonomous weapon.

Lucas Perry: Right. And so an adjacent issue that I’d like to explore now is how a potential arms race can have interplay with issues around accidental escalation of conflict. So is there already an arms race brewing for autonomous weapons? If so, why and what could potentially be done to deescalate such a situation?

Paul Scharre: If there’s an arms race, it’s a very strange one because no one is building the weapons. We see militaries advancing in robotics and autonomy, but we don’t really see sort of this rush to build autonomous weapons. I struggle to point to any programs that I’m aware of in militaries around the globe that are clearly oriented to build fully autonomous weapons. I think there are lots of places where much like these incremental advancements of autonomy in cars, you can see more autonomous features in military vehicles and drones and robotic systems and missiles. They’re adding more autonomy. And one might be violently concerned about where that’s going. But it’s just simply not the case that militaries have declared their intention. We’re going to build autonomous weapons, and here they are, and here’s our program to build them. I would struggle to use the term arms race. It could happen, maybe worth a starting line of an arms race. But I don’t think we’re in one today by any means.

It’s worth also asking, when we say arms race, what do we mean and why do we care? This is again, one of these terms, it’s often thrown around. You’ll hear about this, the concept of autonomous weapons or AI, people say we shouldn’t have an arms race. Okay. Why? Why is an arms race a bad thing? Militaries normally invest in new technologies to improve their national defense. That’s a normal activity. So if you say arms race, what do you mean by that? Is it beyond normal activity? And why would that be problematic? In the political science world, the specific definitions vary, but generally, an arms race is viewed as an increase in defense spending overall, or in a particular technology area above normal levels of modernizing militaries. Now, usually, this is problematic for a couple of reasons. One could be that it ends up just in a massive national expenditure, like during the case of the Cold War, nuclear weapons, that doesn’t really yield any military value or increase anyone’s defense or security, it just ends up net flushing a lot of money down the drain. That’s money that could be spent elsewhere for pre K education or healthcare or something else that might be societally beneficial instead of building all of these weapons. So that’s one concern.

Another one might be that we end up in a world that the large number of these weapons or the type of their weapons makes it worse off. Are we really better off in a world where there are 10s of thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger versus a few thousand weapons or a few hundred weapons? Well, if we ever have zero, all things being equal, probably fewer nuclear weapons is better than more of them. So that’s another kind of concern whether in terms of violence and destructiveness of war, if a war breakout or the likelihood of war and the stability of war. This is an A in an area where certainly we’re not in any way from a spending standpoint, in an arms race for autonomous weapons or AI today, when you look at actual expenditures, they’re a small fraction of what militaries are spending on, if you look at, say AI or autonomous features at large.

And again for autonomous weapons, there really aren’t at least openly declared programs to say go build a fully autonomous weapon today. But even if that were the case, why is that bad? Why would a world where militaries are racing to build lots of atomic weapons be a bad thing? I think it would be a bad thing, but I think it’s also worth just answering that question, because it’s not obvious to everyone. This is something that’s often missing in a lot of these debates and dialogues about autonomous weapons, people may not share some of the underlying assumptions. It’s better to bring out these assumptions and explain, I think this would be bad for these reasons, because maybe it’s not intuitive to other people that they don’t share those reasons and articulating them could increase understanding.

For example, the FLI letter on autonomous weapons from a few years ago said, “the key question for humanity today is whether to start a global AI arms race or prevent it from starting. If any major military power pushes ahead with AI weapon development, the global arms race is virtually inevitable. And the endpoint of this technological trajectory is obvious. Autonomous weapons will become the Kalashnikovs of tomorrow.” I like the language, it’s very literary, “the Kalashnikovs of tomorrow.” Like it’s a very concrete image. But there’s a whole bunch of assumptions packed into those few sentences that maybe don’t work in the letter that’s intended to like sort of galvanize public interest and attention, but are worth really unpacking. What do we mean when we say autonomous weapons are the Kalashnikovs of tomorrow and why is that bad? And what does that mean? Those are, I think, important things to draw out and better understand.

It’s particularly hard for this issue because the weapons don’t exist yet. And so it’s not actually like debates around something like landlines. We could point to the mines and say like “this is a landmine, we all agree this is a landmine. This is what it’s doing to people.” And everyone could agree on what the harm is being caused. The people might disagree on what to do about it, but there’s agreement on what the weapon is and what the effect is. But for autonomous weapons, all these things are up to debate. Even the term itself is not clearly defined. And when I hear people describe it, people can be describing a whole range of things. Some people when they say the word autonomous weapon, they’re envisioning a Roomba with a gun on it. And other people are envisioning the Terminator. Now, both of those things are probably bad ideas, but for very different reasons. And that is important to draw out in these conversations. When you say autonomous weapon, what do you mean? What are you envisioning? What are you worried about? Worried about certain types of scenarios or certain types of effects?

If we want to get to the place where we really as a society come together and grapple with this challenge, I think first and foremost, a better communication is needed and people may still disagree, but it’s much more helpful. Stuart Russell from Berkeley has talked a lot about dangers of small anti-personnel autonomous weapons that would widely be the proliferated. He made the Slaughterbots video that’s been seen millions of times on YouTube. That’s a very specific image. It’s an image that’s very concrete. So then you can say, when Stuart Russell is worried about autonomous weapons, this is what he’s worried about. And then you can start to try to better understand the assumptions that go into that.

Now, I don’t share Stuart’s concerns, and we’ve written about it and talked about before, but it’s not actually because we disagree about the technology, I would agree that that’s very doable with existing technology. We disagree about the social responses to that technology, and how people respond, and what are the countermeasures and what are ways to prevent proliferation. So we, I think, disagree on some of the political or social factors that surround kind of how people approach this technology and use it. Sometimes people actually totally agree on the risks and even maybe the potential futures, they just have different values. And there might be some people who their primary value is trying to have fewer weapons in the world. Now that’s a noble goal. And they’re like, hey, anyway that we can have fewer weapons, fewer advanced technologies, that’s better. That’s very different from someone who’s coming from a position of saying, my goal is to improve my own nation’s defense. That’s a totally different value system. A total different preference. And they might be like, I also value what you say, but I don’t value it as much. And I’m going to take actions that advance these preferences. It’s important to really sort of try to better draw them out and understand them in this debate, if we’re going to get to a place where we can, as a society come up with some helpful solutions to this problem.

Lucas Perry: Wonderful. I’m totally on board with that. Two questions and confusions on my end. The first is, I feel a bit confused when you say these weapons don’t exist already. It seems to me more like autonomy exists on a spectrum and is the integration of many different technologies and decision making in systems. It seems to me there is already a certain degree of autonomy, there isn’t Terminator level autonomy, or specify an objective and the autonomous system can just basically go execute that, that seems to require very high level of generality, but there seems to already exist a level of autonomy today.

And so in that video, Stuart says that slaughterbots in particular represent a miniaturization and integration of many technologies, which already exist today. And the second thing that I’m confused about is when you say that it’s unclear to you that militaries are very interested in this or that there currently is an arms race. It seems like yes, there isn’t an arms race, like there was with nuclear weapons where it’s very clear, and they’re like Manhattan projects around this kind of technology, but given the strategic advantage conferred by this technology now and likely soon, it seems to me like game theoretically, from the position of militaries around the world that have the capacity to invest in these things, that it is inevitable given their battlefield importance that there would be massive ramping up or investments, or that there already is great interest in developing the autonomy and the subtechnologies required for developing fully autonomous systems.

Paul Scharre: Those are great questions and right on point. And I think the central issues in both of your questions are when we say these weapons or when I say these things, I should be more precise. When we say autonomous weapons, what do we mean exactly? And this is one of the things that can be tricky in this space, because there are not these universally agreed upon definitions. There are certainly many weapons systems used widely around the globe today that incorporate some autonomous features. Many of these are fire and forget weapons. When someone launches them, they’re not coming back. They have in that sense, autonomy to carry out their mission. But autonomy is relatively limited and narrowly bounded, and humans, for the most part are choosing the targets. So you can think of kind of maybe these three classes of weapons, these semi autonomous weapons, where humans are choosing the targets, but there’s lots of autonomy surrounding that decision, queuing information to people, flying the munition once the person launches it. That’s one type of weapon, widely used today by really every advanced military.

Another one is the supervised autonomous weapons that are used in these relatively limited settings for defensive purposes, where there is kind of this automatic mode that people can turn them on and activate them to defend the ship or the ground base or the vehicle. And these are really needed for these situations where the incoming threats are too fast for humans to respond. And these again are widely used around the globe and have been in place for decades. And then there are what we could call fully autonomous weapons, where the human’s launching them and human programs in the parameters, but they have some freedom to fly a search pattern over some area and then once they find a target, attack it on their own. For the most part, with some exceptions, those weapons are not widely used today. There have been some experimental systems that have been designed. There have been some put into operation in the past. The Israeli harpy drone is an example of this that is still in operation today. It’s been around since the ’90s, so it’s not really very new. And it’s been sold to a handful of countries, India, Turkey, South Korea, China, and the Chinese have reportedly reverse engineered their own version of this.

But it’s not like when widespread. So it’s not like a major component of militaries order of that. I think you see militaries investing in robotic systems, but the bulk of their fleets are still human occupied platforms, robotics are largely an adjunct to them. And in terms of spending, while there is increased spending on robotics, most of the spending is still going towards more traditional military platforms. The same is also true about the degree of autonomy, most of these robotic systems are just remote controlled, and they have very limited autonomy today. Now we’re seeing more autonomy over time in both robotic vehicles and in missiles. But militaries have a strong incentive to keep humans involved.

It is absolutely the case that militaries want technologies that will give them an advantage on the battlefield. But part of achieving an advantage means your systems work, they do what you want them to do, the enemy doesn’t hack them and take them over, you have control over them. All of those things point to more human control. So I think that’s the thing where you actually see militaries trying to figure out where’s the right place on the spectrum of autonomy? How much autonomy is right, and that line is going to shift over time. But it’s not the case that they necessarily want just full autonomy because what does that mean, then they do want weapon systems to sort of operate under some degree of human direction and involvement. It’s just that what that looks like may evolve over time as the technology advances.

And there are also, I should add, other bureaucratic factors that come into play that militaries investments are not entirely strategic. There’s bureaucratic politics within organizations. There’s politics more broadly with the domestic defense industry interfacing with the political system in that country. They might drive resources in certain directions. There’s some degree of inertia of course in any system that are also factors in play.

Lucas Perry: So I want to hit here a little bit on longer term perspectives. So the Future of Life Institute in particular is interested in mitigating existential risks. We’re interested in the advanced risks from powerful AI technologies where AI not aligned with human values and goals and preferences and intentions can potentially lead us to suboptimal equilibria that were trapped in permanently or could lead to human extinction. And so other technologies we care about are nuclear weapons and synthetic-bio enabled by AI technologies, etc. So there is this view here that if we cannot establish a governance mechanism as a global community on the concept that we should not let AI make the decision to kill then how can we deal with more subtle near term issues and eventual long term safety issues around the powerful AI technologies? So there’s this view of ensuring beneficial outcomes around lethal autonomous weapons or at least beneficial regulation or development of that technology, and the necessity of that for longer term AI risk and value alignment with AI systems as they become increasingly intelligent. I’m curious to know if you have a view or perspective on this.

Paul Scharre: This is the fun part of the podcast with the Future of Life because this rarely comes up in a lot of the conversations because I think in a lot of the debates, people are focused on just much more near term issues surrounding autonomous weapons or AI. I think that if you’re inclined to see that there are longer term risks for more advanced developments in AI, then I think it’s very logical to say that there’s some value in humanity coming together to come up with some set of rules about autonomous weapons today, even if the specific rules don’t really matter that much, because the level of risk is maybe not as significant, but the process of coming together and agreeing on some set of norms and limits on particularly military applications in AI is probably beneficial and may begin to create the foundations for future cooperation. The stakes for autonomous weapons might be big, but are certainly not existential. I think in any reasonable interpretation of autonomous weapons might do really, unless you start thinking about autonomy wired into, like nuclear launch decisions which is basically nuts. And I don’t think it’s really what’s on the table for realistically what people might be worried about.

When we try to come together as a human society to grapple with problems, we’re basically forced to deal with the institutions that we have in place. So for example, for autonomous weapons, we’re having debates in the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons to CCW. Is that the best form for talking about autonomous weapons? Well, it’s kind of the form that exists for this kind of problem set. It’s not bad. It’s not perfect in some respects, but it’s the one that exists. And so if you’re worried about future AI risk, creating the institutional muscle memory among the relevant actors in society, whether it’s nation states, AI scientists, members of civil society, militaries, if you’re worried about military applications, whoever it is, to come together, to have these conversations, and to come up with some answer, and maybe set some agreements, some limits is probably really valuable actually because it begins to establish the right human networks for collaboration and cooperation, because it’s ultimately people, it’s people who know each other.

So oh, “I worked with this person on this last thing.” If you look at, for example, the international movement that The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots is spearheading, that institution or framework, those people, those relationships are born out of past successful efforts to ban landmines and then cluster munitions. So there’s a path dependency, and human relationships and bureaucracies, institutions that really matters. Coming together and reaching any kind of agreement, actually, to set some kind of limits is probably really vital to start exercising those muscles today.

Lucas Perry: All right, wonderful. And a final fun FLI question for you. What are your views on long term AI safety considerations? Do you view AI eventually as an existential risk and do you integrate that into your decision making and thinking around the integration of AI and military technology?

Paul Scharre: Yes, it’s a great question. It’s not something that comes up a lot in the world that I live in, in Washington in the policy world, people don’t tend to think about that kind of risk. I think it’s a concern. It’s a hard problem because we don’t really know how the technology is evolving. And I think that one of the things is challenging with AI is our frame for future more advanced AI. Often the default frame is sort of thinking about human like intelligence. When people talk about future AI, people talk about terms like AGI, or high level machine intelligence or human like intelligence, we don’t really know how the technology is evolving.

I think one of the things that we’re seeing with AI machine learning that’s quite interesting is that it often is evolving in ways that are very different from human intelligence, in fact, very quite alien and quite unusual. And I’m not the first person to say this, but I think that this is valid that we are, I think, on the verge of a Copernican revolution in how we think about intelligence, that rather than thinking of human intelligence as the center of the universe, that we’re realizing that humans are simply one type of intelligence among a whole vast array and space of possible forms of intelligence, and we’re creating different kinds, they may have very different intelligence profiles, they may just look very different, they may be much smarter than humans in some ways and dumber in other ways. I don’t know where things are going. I think it’s entirely possible that we move forward into a future where we see many more forms of advanced intelligent systems. And because they don’t have the same intelligence profile as human beings, we continue to kick the can down the road into being true intelligence because it doesn’t look like us. It doesn’t think like us. It thinks differently. But these systems may yet be very powerful in very interesting ways.

We’ve already seen lots of AI systems, even very simple ones exhibit a lot of creativity, a lot of interesting and surprising behavior. And as we begin to see the sort of scope of their intelligence widen over time, I think there are going to be risks that come with that. They may not be the risks that we were expecting, but I think over time, there going to be significant risks, and in some ways that our anthropocentric view is, I think, a real hindrance here. And I think it may lead us to then underestimate risk from things that don’t look quite like humans, and maybe miss some things that are very real. I’m not at all worried about some AI system one day becoming self aware, and having human level sentience, that does not keep me up at night. I am deeply concerned about advanced forms of malware. We’re not there today yet. But you could envision things over time that are adapting and learning and begin to populate the web, like there are people doing interesting ways of thinking about systems that have misaligned goals. It’s also possible to envision systems that don’t have any human directed goals at all. Viruses don’t. They replicate. They’re effective at replicating, but they don’t necessarily have a goal in the way that we think of it other than self replication.

If you have systems that are capable of replicating, of accumulating resources, of adapting, over time, you might have all of the right boxes to check to begin to have systems that could be problematic. They could accumulate resources that could cause problems. Even if they’re not trying to pursue either a goal that’s misaligned with human interest or even any goal that we might recognize. They simply could get out in the wild, if they’re effective at replication and acquiring resources and adapting, then they might survive. I think we’re likely to be surprised and continue to be surprised by how AI systems evolve, and where that might take us. And it might surprise us in ways that are humbling for how we think about human intelligence. So one question I guess is, is human intelligence a convergence point for more intelligent systems? As AI systems become more advanced, and they become more human like, or less human like and more alien.

Lucas Perry: Unless we train them very specifically on human preference hierarchies and structures.

Paul Scharre: Right. Exactly. Right. And so I’m not actually worried about a system that has the intelligence profile of humans, when you think about capacity in different tasks.

Lucas Perry: I see what you mean. You’re not worried about an anthropomorphic AI, you’re worried about a very powerful, intelligent, capable AI, that is alien and that we don’t understand.

Paul Scharre: Right. They might have cross domain functionality, it might have the ability to do continuous learning. It might be adaptive in some interesting ways. I mean, one of the interesting things we’ve seen about the field of AI is that people are able to tackle a whole variety of problems with some very simple methods and algorithms. And this seems for some reason offensive to some people in the AI community, I don’t know why, but people have been able to use some relatively simple methods, with just huge amounts of data and compute, it’s like a variety of different kinds of problems, some of which seem very complex.

Now, they’re simple compared to the real world, when you look at things like strategy games like StarCraft and Dota 2, like the world looks way more complex, but these are still really complicated kind of problems. And systems are basically able to learn totally on their own. That’s not general intelligence, but it starts to point towards the capacity to have systems that are capable of learning a whole variety of different tasks. They can’t do this today, continuously without suffering the problem of catastrophic forgetting that people are working on these things as well. The problems today are the systems aren’t very robust. They don’t handle perturbations in the environment very well. People are working on these things. I think it’s really hard to see how this evolves. But yes, in general, I think that our fixation on human intelligence as the pinnacle of intelligence, or even the goal of what we’re trying to build, and the sort of this anthropocentric view is, I think, probably one that’s likely to lead us to maybe underestimate some kinds of risks.

Lucas Perry: I think those are excellent points and I hope that mindfulness about that is able to proliferate in government and in actors who have power to help mitigate some of these future and short term AI risks. I really appreciate your perspective and I think you bring a wholesomeness and a deep authentic entertaining of all the different positions and arguments here on the question of autonomous weapons and I find that valuable. So thank you so much for your time and for helping to share information about autonomous weapons with us.

Paul Scharre: Thank you and thanks everyone for listening. Take care.

End of recorded material