Daniel C

Master's student in applied mathematics, funded by Center on Long-Term Risk to investigate the cheating problem in safe pareto-improvements.

Some other areas I'm interested in:

  • Investigate properties of general purpose search so that we can handcraft it & simply retarget the search
  • Investigate the type signature of world models to find properties that remain invariant under ontology shifts
  • Natural latents
    • How to characterize natural latents in settings like PDEs?
    • Equivalence of natural latents under transformation of variables 
  • Formalizing automated design
  • Information theoretic impact measures
  • Scalable blockchain consensus mechanisms
  • Programming language for concurrency
  • Quantifying optimization power without assuming a particular utility function
  • What mathematical axioms would emerge in a solomonoff inductor?
  • How things like riemannian metric & differential equations might emerge from discrete systems
  • Morphogenesis

I'm currently looking for collaborators both for exchanging research ideas and for distillations, feel free to contact me via PM or my email backtrackgideon@gmail.com for any reason.

Wiki Contributions

Comments

Sorted by

Noted, that does seem a lot more tractable than using natural latents to pin down details of CEV by itself

natural latents are about whether the AI's cognition routes through the same concepts that humans use.

We can imagine the AI maintaining predictive accuracy about humans without using the same human concepts. For example, it can use low-level physics to simulate the environment, which would be predictively accurate, but that cognition doesn't make use of the concept "strawberry" (in principle, we can still "single out" the concept of "strawberry" within it, but that information comes mostly from us, not from the physics simulation)


Natural latents are equivalent up to isomorphism (ie two latent variables are equivalent iff they give the same conditional probabilities on observables), but for reflective aspects of human cognition, it's unclear whether that equivalence class pin down all information we care about for CEV (there may be differences within the equivalence class that we care about), in a way that generalizes far out of distribution

I think the fact that natural latents are much lower dimensional than all of physics makes it suitable for specifying the pointer to CEV as an equivalence class over physical processes (many quantum field configurations can correspond to the same human, and we want to ignore differences within that equivalence class).

IMO the main bottleneck is to account for the reflective aspects in CEV, because one constraint of natural latents is that it should be redundantly represented in the environment.

like infinite state Turing machines, or something like this:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.08747

 

Interesting, I'll check it out!

Then we've converged almost completely, thanks for the conversation.

 Thanks! I enjoyed the conversation too.

So you're saying that conditional on GPS working, both capabilities and inner alignment problems are solved or solvable, right?

yes, I think inner alignment is basically solved conditional on GPS working, for capabilities I think we still need some properties of the world model in addition to GPS.

While I agree that formal proof is probably the case with the largest divide in practice, the verification/generation gap applies to a whole lot of informal fields as well, like research, engineering of buildings and bridges, and more,

I agree though if we had a reliable way to do cross the formal-informal bridge, it would be very helpful, I was just making a point about how pervasive the verification/generation gap is.

Agreed.

My main thoughts on infrabayesianism is that while it definitely interesting, and I do like quite a bit of the math and results, right now the monotonicity principle is a big reason why I'm not that comfortable with using infrabayesianism, even if it actually worked.

I also don't believe it's necessary for alignment/uncertainty either.

yes, the monotonicity principle is also the biggest flaw of infrabayesianism IMO, & I also don't think it's necessary for alignment (though I think some of their results or analogies of their results would show up in a full solution to alignment).

I wasn't totally thinking of simulated reflection, but rather automated interpretability/alignment research.

I intended "simulated reflection" to encompass (a form of) automated interpretability/alignment research, but I should probably use a better terminology.

 

Yeah, a big thing I admit to assuming is that I'm assuming that the GPS is quite aimable by default, due to no adversarial cognition, at least for alignment purposes, but I want to see your solution first, because I still think this research could well be useful.

Thanks!

This is what I was trying to say, that the tradeoff is in certain applications like automating AI interpretability/alignment research is not that harsh, and I was saying that a lot of the methods that make personal intent/instruction following AGIs feasible allow you to extract optimization that is hard and safe enough to use iterative methods to solve the problem.

Agreed

People at OpenAI are absolutely trying to integrate search into LLMs, see this example where they got the Q* algorithm that aced a math test:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JnM3EHegiBePeKkLc/possible-openai-s-q-breakthrough-and-deepmind-s-alphago-type

Also, I don't buy that it was refuted, based on this, which sounds like a refutation but isn't actually a refutation, and they never directly deny it:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JnM3EHegiBePeKkLc/possible-openai-s-q-breakthrough-and-deepmind-s-alphago-type#ECyqFKTFSLhDAor7k

Interesting, I do expect GPS to be the main bottleneck for both capabilities and inner alignment

it's generally much easier to verify that something has been done correctly than actually executing the plan yourself

Agreed, but I think the main bottleneck is crossing the formal-informal bridge, so it's much harder to come up with a specification  such that  but once we have such a specification it'll be much easier to come up with an implementation (likely with the help of AI)

2.) Reward modelling is much simpler with respect to uncertainty, at least if you want to be conservative. If you are uncertain about the reward of something, you can just assume it will be bad and generally you will do fine. This reward conservatism is often not optimal for agents who have to navigate an explore/exploit tradeoff but seems very sensible for alignment of an AGI where we really do not want to ‘explore’ too far in value space. Uncertainty for ‘capabilities’ is significantly more problematic since you have to be able to explore and guard against uncertainty in precisely the right way to actually optimize a stochastic world towards a specific desired point.

Yes, I think optimizing worst-case performance is one crucial part of alignment, it's also one 
advantage of  infrabayesianism

I do think this means we will definitely have to get better at interpretability, but the big reason I think this matters less than you think is probably due to being more optimistic about the meta-plan for alignment research, due to both my models of how research progress works, plus believing that you can actually get superhuman performance at stuff like AI interpretability research and still have instruction following AGIs/ASIs.

Yes, I agree that accelerated/simulated reflection is a key hope for us to interpret an alien ontology, especially if we can achieve something like HRH that helps us figure out how to improve automated interpretability itself.  I think this would become safer & more feasible if we have an aimable GPS and a modular world model that supports counterfactual queries (as we'd get to control the optimization target for automating interpretability without worrying about unintended optimization).
 

Re the issue of Goodhart failures, maybe a kind of crux is how much do we expect General Purpose Search to be aimable by humans

 

I also expect general purpose search to be aimable, in fact, it’s selected to be aimable so that the AI can recursively retarget GPS on instrumental subgoals

 

which means we can put a lot of optimization pressure, because I view future AI as likely to be quite correctable, even in the superhuman regime.

 

I think there’s a fundamental tradeoff between optimization pressure & correctability, because if we apply a lot of optimization pressure on the wrong goals, the AI will prevent us from correcting it, and if the goals are adequate we won’t need to correct them. Obviously we should lean towards correctability when they’re in conflict, and I agree that the amount of optimization pressure that we can safely apply while retaining sufficient correctability can still be quite high (possibly superhuman)

 

Another crux might be that I think alignment probably generalizes further than capabilities, for the reasons sketched out by Beren Millidge here:

Yes, I consider this to be the central crux.

I think current models lack certain features which prevent the generalization of their capabilities, so observing that alignment generalizes further than capabilities for current models is only weak evidence that it will continue to be true for agentic AIs

I also think an adequate optimization target about the physical world is much more complex than a reward model for LLM, especially because we have to evaluate consequences in an alien ontology that might be constantly changing

We can also get more optimization if we have better tools to aim General Purpose Search more so that we can correct the model if it goes wrong.

 

Yes, I think having an aimable general purpose search module is the most important bottleneck for solving inner alignment

I think things can still go wrong if we apply too much optimization pressure to an inadequate optimization target because we won’t have a chance to correct the AI if it doesn’t want us to (I think adding corrigibility is a form of reducing optimization pressure, but it's still desirable).

Good point. I agree that the wrong model of user's preferences is my main concern and most alignment thinkers'.  And that it can happen with a personal intent alignment as well as value alignment. 

This is why I prefer instruction-following to corrigibility as a target. If it's aligned to follow instructions, it doesn't need nearly as much of a model of the user's preferences to succeed. It just needs to be instructed to talk through its important actions before executing, like "Okay, I've got an approach that should work. I'll engineer a gene drive to painlessly eliminate the human population". "Um okay, I actually wanted the humans to survive and flourish while solving cancer, so let's try another approach that accomplishes that too...". I describe this as do-what-I-mean-and-check, DWIMAC.

Yes, I also think that is a consideration in favor of instruction following. I think there’s an element of IF which I find appealing, it’s somewhat similar to bayesian updating: When I tell an IF agent to “fill the cup”, on one hand it will try to fulfill that goal, but it also thinks about the “usual situation” where that instruction is satisfied, & it will notice that the rest of the world remains pretty much unchanged, so it will try to replicate that. We can think of the IF agent as having a background prior over world states, and it conditions that prior on our instructions to get a posterior distribution over world states, & that’s the “target distribution” that it’s optimizing for. So it will try to fill the cup, but it wouldn’t build a dyson sphere to harness energy & maximize the probability of the cup being filled, because that scenario has never occurred when a cup has been filled (so that world has low prior probability).

 

I think this property can also be transferred to PIA and VA, where we have a compromise between “desirable worlds according to model of user values” and “usual worlds”.

Also, accurately modeling short-term intent - what the user wants right now - seems a lot more straightforward than modeling the deep long-term values of all of humanity. Of course, it's also not as good a way to get a future that everyone likes a lot. This seems like a notable difference but not an immense one; the focus on instructions seems more important to me.

Absent all of that, it seems like there's still two advantages to modeling just one person's values instead of all of humanity's.  The smaller one is that you don't need to understand as many people or figure out how to aggregate values that conflict with each other. I think that's not actually that hard since lots of compromises could give very good futures, but I haven't thought that one alal the way through. The bigger advantage is that one person can say "oh my god don't do that it's the last thing I want" and it's pretty good evidence for their true values. Humanity as a whole probably won't be in a position to say that before a value-aligned AGI sets out to fulfill its (misgeneralized) model of their values.

Agreed, I also favor personal intent alignment for those reasons, or at least I consider PIA + accelerated & simulated reflection to be the most promising path towards eventual VA

 

Doesn't easier to build mean lower alignment tax?

It’s part of it, but alignment tax also includes the amount of capabilities that we have to sacrifice to ensure that the AI is safe. The way I think of alignment tax is that for every optimization target, there is an upper bound on the optimization pressure that we can apply before we run into goodhart failures. The closer the optimization target is to our actual values, the more optimization pressure we get to safely apply. & because each instruction only captures a small part of our actual values, we have to limit the amount of optimization pressure we apply (this is also why we need to avoid side effects when the AI has an imperfect model of the users’ preferences).

Load More