I do alignment research at the Alignment Research Center. Learn more about me at markxu.com/about
Posts
Wiki Contributions
For any given system, you have some distribution over which properties will be necessary to verify in order to not die to that system. Some of those you will in fact be able to verify, thereby obtaining evidence about whether that system is dangerous. “Strategic deception” is a large set of features, some of which are possible to verify.
yes, you would need the catastrophe detector to be reasonably robust. Although I think it's fine if e.g. you have at least 1/million chance of catching any particular catastrophe.
I think there is a gap, but that the gap is probably not that bad (for "worst case" tail risk estimation). That is maybe because I think being able to do estimation through a single forward pass is likely already to be very hard, and to require being able to do "abstractions" over the concepts being manipulated by the forward pass. CoT seems like it will require vaguely similar struction of a qualitatively similar kind.
I think there are some easy-to-verify properties that would make us more likely to die if they were hard-to-verify. And therefore think "verification is easier than generation" is an important part of the overall landscape of AI risk.
I think both that:
- this is not a good characterization of Paul's views
- verification is typically easier than generalization and this fact is important for the overall picture for AI risk
I also think that this post is pulling a bit of a motte-and-bailey, although not really in the sense that John claims he is making in argument in the post:
- the motte: there exist hard to verify properties
- the bailey: all/most important properties are hard to verify
2I agree ergonimics can be hard to verify. But some ergonomics are easy to verify, and chairs conform to those ergonomics (e.g. having a backrest is good, not having sharp stabby parts are good, etc.).
I agree that there are some properties of objects that are hard to verify. But that doesn't mean generation is as hard as verification in general. The central property of a chair (that you can sit on it) is easy to verify.
I think catastrophe detectors in practice will be composed of neural networks interacting with other stuff, like scientific literature, python, etc.
With respect to the stuff quoted, I think all but "doing experiments" can be done with a neural net doing chain of thought (although not making claims about quality).
I think we're trying to solve a different problem than trusted monitoring, but I'm not that knowledgeable about what issues trusted monitoring is trying to solve. The main thing that I don't think you can do with monitoring is producing a model that you think is unlikely to result in catastrophe. Monitoring lets you do online training when you find catastrophe, but e.g. there might be no safe fallback action that allows you to do monitoring safely.
Separately, I do think it will be easy to go from "worst-case" NN-tail-risk estimation to "worst case" more general risk estimation. I do not think it will be easy to go from "typical case" NN-tail-risk estimation to more general "typical case" risk estimation, but think that "typical case" NN-tail-risk estimation can meaningfully reduce safety despite not being able to do that generalization.
Re. more specific hopes: if your risk estimate is conducted by model with access to tools like python, then we can try to do two things:
- vaguely get an estimate that is as good as the estimate you would get if you replaced "python" with your model's subjective distribution over the output of whatever it runs through python.
- learn some "empirical regularities" that govern how python works (as expected by your model/SGD)
(these might be the same thing?)
Another argument: one reason why doing risk estimates for NN's is hard is because the estimate can rely on facts that live in some arbitrary LLM ontology. If you want to do such an estimate for an LLM bureaucracy, some fraction of the relevant facts will live in LLM ontology and some fraction of facts will live in words passed between models. Some fraction of facts will live in a distributed way, which adds complications, but those distributed facts can only affect the output of the bureacracy insofar as they are themselves manipulated by an LLM in that bureacracy.
I have left a comment about a central way I think this post is misguided: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7fJRPB6CF6uPKMLWi/my-ai-model-delta-compared-to-christiano?commentId=sthrPShrmv8esrDw2
1This post uses "I can identify ways in which chairs are bad" as an example. But it's easier for me to verify that I can sit in a chair and that it's comfortable then to make a chair myself. So I don't really know why this is a good example for "verification is easier than generation".
More examples:
- I can tell my computer is a good typing machine, but cannot make one myself
- I can tell a waterbottle is water tight, but do not know how to make a water bottle
- I can tell that my pepper grinder grinds pepper, but do not know how to make a pepper grinder.
If the goal of this post is to discuss the crux https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/fYf9JAwa6BYMt8GBj/link-a-minimal-viable-product-for-alignment?commentId=mPgnTZYSRNJDwmr64:
evaluation isn't easier than generation, and that claim is true regardless of how good you are at evaluation until you get basically perfect at it
then I think there is a large disconnect between the post above, which is positing that in order for this claim to be false there has to be some "deep" sense in which delagation is viable, and the sense in which I think this crux is obviously false in the more mundane sense in which all humans interface with the world and optimize over the products other people create, and are therefore more capable than they would have been if they had to make all products for themselves from scratch.
If you're commited to producing a powerful AI then the thing that matters is the probability there exists something you can't find that will kill you. I think our current understanding is sufficiently paltry that the chance of this working is pretty low (the value added by doing selection on non-deceptive behavior is probably very small, but I think there's a decent chance you just won't get that much deception). But you can also get evidence about the propensity for your training process to produce deceptive AIs and stop producing them until you develop better understanding, or alter your training process in other ways. For example, you can use your understanding of the simpler forms of deception your AIs engage in to invest resources in understanding more complicated forms of deception, e.g. by focusing interpretability efforts.