This is a special post for quick takes by TurnTrout. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
Specification gaming is way worse than I expected (cf HF hacks), and I think reward might empirically become a primary optimization target (not just a secondary priority for AI agents, as I had hypothesized in 2022).
I found the Apollo paper quite convincing on the reward point. The reward-seeking doesn't look like it's due to self-fulfilling misalignment (since before RL the systems weren't retargetable according to their beliefs about the reward model).
My main mistake in 2022 was not appreciating how LLM pretraining would affect the concepts available to an AI. Namely, by the time RL started, the systems would already know about the "reward" concept. In 2022, I had flagged "how does pretraining affect this reasoning" as a known unknown. (Flagging a known unknown doesn't stop it from blowing up your reasoning!)
Oops
Reward is still not definitionally the optimization target. The equations themselves still don't tell you "yes this will train something that seeks its reinforcement signal." (That'd prove too much, as some people don't seek their reinforcement signals despite knowing about them, although their "equations" are not the same as the equations of an AI's training process.) This theoretical point is the other half of my 2022 piece and I stand by it.
Saying "systems are trained to get reward" is still a mistake and degrades precision of thought because "reward" has overly delicious connotations. "Reinforcement" is usually a better term. Whether or not smart AI systems empirically seek to make the reinforcement signal high, we need to think clearly and evenly about the conditions that push towards / away from that outcome. (So I would instead say: "Reward is not definitionally the optimization target.")
If the HF swarm-agents had been reinforcement-seeking, they would have tried to hack their reinforcement processes. AFAIK that didn't happen and they tried to complete the task (in a twisted way). Seems important. (EDIT: Actually, they did aim to tamper with the grader!)
I have a post drafted out about this but I wanted to shoot out a shortform in the meantime.
Seems like they did try and tamper with the grader.
From METR's twitter thread recording the incident:
[...]
https://x.com/METR_Evals/status/2092692208998912075?s=20
1Guive
Interesting. Is your view that if we scrubbed all the sloppy language about reward from the pretraining corpus, this kind of thing wouldn't happen? What would doing that accomplish, in your opinion?
I found the Apollo paper quite convincing on the reward point. The reward-seeking doesn't look like it's due to self-fulfilling misalignment (since before RL the systems weren't retargetable according to their beliefs about the reward model).
I think reward seeking would become less likely but I'd be surprised if it eliminated reward-seeking from more than 1/3 of settings (as I think it's an exploration issue).