paulfchristiano

paulfchristiano's Shortform

We might be able to get similar advantages with a more general proposal like:

Fit a function f to a (Q, A) dataset with lots of questions about latent structure. Minimize the sum of some typical QA objective and the computational cost of verifying that f is consistent.

Then the idea is that matching the conditional probabilities from the human's model (or at least being consistent with what the human believes strongly about those conditional probabilities) essentially falls out of a consistency condition.

It's not clear how to actually formulate that consistency condition, but it seems like an improvement over the prior situation (which was just baking in the obviously-untenable requirement of exactly matching). It's also not clear what happens if this consistency condition is soft.

It's not clear what "verify that the consistency conditions are met" means. You can always do the same proposal as in the parent, though it's not really clear if that's a convincing verification. But I think that's a fundamental philosophical problem that both of these proposals need to confront.

It's not clear how to balance computational cost and the QA objective. But you are able to avoid most of the bad properties just by being on the Pareto frontier, and I don't think this is worse than the prior proposal.

Overall this approach seems like it could avoid making such strong structural assumptions about the underlying model. It also helps a lot with the overlapping explanations + uniformity problem. And it generally seems to be inching towards feeling plausible.

paulfchristiano's Shortform

Here's another approach to "shortest circuit" that is designed to avoid this problem:

- Learn a circuit that outputs an entire set of beliefs. (Or maybe some different architecture, but with ~0 weight sharing so that computational complexity = description complexity.)
- Impose a consistency requirement on those beliefs, even in cases where a human can't tell the right answer.
- Require 's beliefs about to match . We hope that this makes an explication of "'s beliefs."
- Optimize some combination of (complexity) vs (usefulness), or chart the whole pareto frontier, or whatever. I'm a bit confused about how this step would work but there are similar difficulties for the other posts in this genre so it's exciting if this proposal gets to that final step.

The "intended" circuit just follows along with the computation done by and then translates its internal state into natural language.

What about the problem case where computes some reasonable beliefs (e.g. using the instrumental policy, where the simplicity prior makes us skeptical about their generalization) that could just read off? I'll imagine those being written down somewhere on a slip of paper inside of 's model of the world.

- Suppose that the slip of paper is not relevant to predicting , i.e. it's a spandrel from the weight sharing. Then the simplest circuit just wants to cut it out. Whatever computation was done to write things down on the slip of paper can be done directly by , so it seems like we're in business.
- So suppose that the slip of paper is relevant for predicting , e.g. because someone looks at the slip of paper and then takes an action that affects . If (the correct) is itself depicted on the slip of paper, then we can again cut out the slip of paper itself and just run the same computation (that was done by whoever wrote something on the slip of paper). Otherwise, the answers produced by still have to contain both the items on the slip of paper as well as some facts that are causally downstream of the slip of paper (as well as hopefully some about the slip of paper itself). At that point it seems like we have a pretty good chance of getting a consistency violation out of .

Probably nothing like this can work, but I now feel like there are two live proposals for capturing the optimistic minimal circuits intuition---the one in this current comment, and in this other comment. I still feel like the aggressive speed penalization is doing something, and I feel like probably we can either find a working proposal in that space or else come up with some clearer counterexample.

Improving capital gains taxes

I was proposing exempting the short-term risk-free rate, and I was imagining using 30 day treasury yield a the metric. (The post originally said that but it got simplified in the interest of clarity---of course "savings account" is vague since they pay different amounts with different risk, but it seems to communicate basically the same stuff.) That's also roughly the rate at which you'd borrow if using leverage to offset your tax burden (e.g. it's roughly the rate embedded in futures or at which investors can borrow on margin).

Benchmarking an old chess engine on new hardware

Very interesting, thanks!

- Could you confirm how much you have to scale down SF13 in order to match SF3? (This seems similar to what you did last time, but a more direct comparison.)
- The graph from last time makes it look like SF13 would match Rebel at about 20k nodes/move. Could you also confirm that?
- Looking forward to seeing the scaled-up Rebel results.

A closer look at chess scalings (into the past)

In another comment you wrote "In between is the region with ~70 ELO; that's where engines usually operate on present hardware with minutes of think time" which made sense to me, I'm just trying to square that with this graph.

paulfchristiano's Shortform

Recently I've been thinking about ML systems that generalize poorly (copying human errors) because of either re-using predictive models of humans or using human inference procedures to map between world models.

My initial focus was on preventing re-using predictive models of humans. But I'm feeling increasingly like there is going to be a single solution to the two problems, and that the world-model mismatch problem is a good domain to develop the kind of algorithm we need. I want to say a bit about why.

I'm currently thinking about dealing with world model mismatches by learning a correspondence between models using something other than a simplicity prior / training a neural network to answering questions. Intuitively we want to do something more like "lining up" the two models and seeing what parts correspond to which others. We have a lot of conditions/criteria for such alignments, so we don't necessarily have to just stick with simplicity. This comment fleshes out one possible approach a little bit.

If this approach succeeds, then it also directly applicable to avoiding re-using human models---we want to be lining up the internal computation of our model with concepts like "There is a cat in the room" rather than just asking the model to predict whether there is a cat however it wants (which it may do by copying a human labeler). And on the flip side, I think that the "re-using human models" problem is a good constraint to have in mind when thinking about ways to do this correspondence. (Roughly speaking, because something like computational speed or "locality" seems like a really central constraint for matching up world models, and doing that approach naively can greatly exacerbate the problems with copying the training process.)

So for now I think it makes sense for me to focus on whether learning this correspondence is actually plausible. If that succeeds then I can step back and see how that changes my overall view of the landscape (I think it might be quite a significant change), and if it fails then I hope to at least know a bit more about the world model mismatch problem.

I think the best analogy in existing practice is probably doing interpretability work---mapping up the AI's model to my model is kind of like looking at neurons and trying to make sense of what they are computing (or looking for neurons that compute something). And giving up on a "simplicity prior" is very natural when doing interpretability, instead using other considerations to determine whether a correspondence is good. It still seems kind of plausible that in retrospect my current work will look like it was trying to get a solid theoretical picture on what interpretability should do (including in the regime where the correspondence is quite complex, and when the goal is a much more complete level of understanding). I swing back and forth on how strong the analogy to interpretability seems / whether or not this is how it will look in retrospect. (But at any rate, my research methodology feels like a very different approach to similar questions.)

paulfchristiano's Shortform

Here's a slightly more formal algorithm along these lines:

- Assume that both the human's model and the AI's model are Bayesian networks where you compute the probability distribution over a node 's value based on the values of its parents . I'll write for the set of values that a node can take on (in either model), and for the joint values of a set of nodes .
- A correspondence tells you how to compute the value of each node in the human's model. This consistent of (i) a neighborhood in the AI's model which suffices to determine , (ii) a function .
- Both the AI's model and the human model contain some distinguished observation nodes. must be the identity on these nodes.
- An "explanation" of a correspondence consists of a set of nodes in the AI's model for each node in the human's model. The intuition is that we can run a simulation involving only these nodes in order to reproduce the probability distribution of given its parents' values.
- In particular, , and for all . In order to check whether reproduces the right distribution, we first sample values at random for all the nodes some of whose parents aren't in . Then we sample values for the remaining nodes. We can use to compute the corresponding values for and all of its parents. And then we can compute the conditional distributions for given each set of values for its parents.
- We require that the explanations exactly reproduce the conditional probability over given .
- The "cost" of the explanation of is the sum of the compute required to sample all the nodes in . The "cost" of the correspondence is the compute required to evaluate it.
- We search for the set of correspondences and explanations for which the total cost is minimized.
- (Maybe we also have some requirement where the correspondence agrees with some training data about . I'm not really sure about that.)

Reviewing how this behaves in each of the bad cases from the parent:

- It's very bad to define by computing the observation and then using the human's inference algorithm. The entire motivation for defining it this way was to save on description complexity, but is only being penalized for computational complexity. (This also forces every single to include the entire process that generates the observations, which seems like it should be an even bigger deal. But this feels less like the "right" reason and I think it might change for a future version of the scheme.)
- If there is a human in the simulation who knows the value of , it's extremely bad to define to be that human. This is because the explanation will need to include the entire process by which the human computes that value. This is guaranteed to be more expensive than just performing that compute in the correspondence itself.
- We
*could*define to compute the value of from scratch using the initial values of the simulation, using some more-efficient simulation. But we can't do this for the observation node , since it is required to map up with the observation node in the AI's model. So in order to explain the observation node we will need to have include the AI's entire model, or at least the parts leading up to the observation. This means we are basically paying for two full copies of the computation, and so we're not really benefiting from the fact that the second copy is more efficient. (We are also potentially overlapping a lot of computation between the different 's, but again I'm a bit less sure how robust that is and whether it will hold up in different formalizations.)

There are a lot of problems and missing details in this proposal:

- This requires exactly reproducing the conditional probabilities in the human's model. But that's totally unrealistic for anything short of a full simulation---and even for the full simulation it wouldn't reproduce the probabilities since the human model isn't accurate. So we need some way to choose a good enough explanation, i.e. a way of balancing the computational complexity of the explanation against the quality of the conditional probabilities that come out.
- We're sampling the inputs to uniformly at random. This seems unlikely to work in general. We could easily sample each node from its marginal, but most of the action is in the correlation. Allowing arbitrary correlations causes problems (since you could just specify the "human is accurate" correlation and then read off the correct answers from there). So I think probably some more flexible system is needed here; there are a lot of options but it's tricky.
- There is something problematic about the overlapping explanations . If they overlap you need to pay for all of them, but for the intended mapping there will often be quite significant overlap. This isn't inherently a problem, but I'm scared that it's going to introduce a lot of pressure towards some different correspondence that is able to avoid that problem. We need to penalize overlap because the case where the training data is embedded in the model---the
*main*problem with that model is that you need to separately explain every way in which the human is correct with highly overlapping explanations. If you didn't penalize those then you may just end up with the embedded explanations (for which is extremely cheap). - There is something tricky about uniformity in the model and in the implementations of .
- I'm still scared about the "recompute everything from scratch" failure mode. The model does need to have a single explanation that needs to include the whole model. But (i) it doesn't have to reproduce work, (ii) it can cut out all the stuff not on the path to the observation. So the obvious reason that this one loses is by the duplicated work in . Hopefully that's actually robust.
- We are making really strong structural assumptions on the models and the correspondence between them. We get
*some*things for free (because humans actually do have extra structure in our beliefs about the world that is properly part of the problem statement, and the AI's model is constrained by its architecture) but not nearly this much.

Overall I'm becoming significantly more optimistic that something like this will work (though still less likely than not). Trying to step back and see the big picture, it seems like there are three key active ingredients:

- Using "speed" instead of "simplicity" as the ~only requirement for these correspondences.
- Having separate correspondences for separate properties and not allowing them to share tons of computation with each other (to prevent re-running the whole simulation).
- Forcing the model to explain correlations, so that using an "embedded" copy of the answers (like a simulation of the data-generating process) forces you to reproduce the computation that produced that answer.

My next step would probably be looking at cases where these high-level ingredients aren't sufficient (e.g. are there cases where "generate obs then do inference in the human model" is actually cheaper?). If they look pretty good, then I'll spend some more time trying to fill in the details in a more plausible way.

Answering questions honestly instead of predicting human answers: lots of problems and some solutions

- I don't think you actually want to use supervised training for training , you want to use feedback of the form "Is this answer much wronger than that answer?" and then train the model to not produce definitely-wrong answers.
- Likewise the constraint would really want to be something softer (e.g. forcing to give plausible-looking answers to questions as evaluated by ).
- I think that most questions about what is useful / tacitly assumed / etc. can be easily handled on top of the "raw" ability to elicit the model's knowledge (if you like you could imagine having a debate about which answer is better all things considered, using to assess the model's beliefs about closed question)
- I do think there are a lot of problems along these lines that you'd want to think about a bunch in theory, and then later need to do a bunch of empirical work on. But unfortunately I also think there are a lot of "bigger fish to fry" that are very likely to sink this entire family of approaches. So the first order of business is understanding those and wandering our way to a general category of solution that might actually work.

A closer look at chess scalings (into the past)

I'm quite surprised by how far out on the Elo vs compute curve we already are by a million nodes/move. Is this the main "target platform" for stockfish, or are people mostly trying to optimize the performance for significantly smaller node counts?

(I'm wondering whether such strong diminishing returns are fundamental to the domain, or whether people are putting the most work into optimizing performance down at more like 100kNodes/sec.)

The results look quite different for Houdini 3 vs SF8---is this just a matter of Stockfish being much better optimized for small amounts of hardware?