Showing 1–34 of 34 results for author: Everitt, T

A Mechanism-Based Approach to Mitigating Harms from Persuasive Generative AI

Authors: Seliem El-Sayed, Canfer Akbulut, Amanda McCroskery, Geoff Keeling, Zachary Kenton, Zaria Jalan, Nahema Marchal, Arianna Manzini, Toby Shevlane, Shannon Vallor, Daniel Susser, Matija Franklin, Sophie Bridgers, Harry Law, Matthew Rahtz, Murray Shanahan, Michael Henry Tessler, Arthur Douillard, Tom Everitt, Sasha Brown

Abstract: Recent generative AI systems have demonstrated more advanced persuasive capabilities and are increasingly permeating areas of life where they can influence decision-making. Generative AI presents a new risk profile of persuasion due the opportunity for reciprocal exchange and prolonged interactions. This has led to growing concerns about harms from AI persuasion and how they can be mitigated, high… ▽ More Recent generative AI systems have demonstrated more advanced persuasive capabilities and are increasingly permeating areas of life where they can influence decision-making. Generative AI presents a new risk profile of persuasion due the opportunity for reciprocal exchange and prolonged interactions. This has led to growing concerns about harms from AI persuasion and how they can be mitigated, highlighting the need for a systematic study of AI persuasion. The current definitions of AI persuasion are unclear and related harms are insufficiently studied. Existing harm mitigation approaches prioritise harms from the outcome of persuasion over harms from the process of persuasion. In this paper, we lay the groundwork for the systematic study of AI persuasion. We first put forward definitions of persuasive generative AI. We distinguish between rationally persuasive generative AI, which relies on providing relevant facts, sound reasoning, or other forms of trustworthy evidence, and manipulative generative AI, which relies on taking advantage of cognitive biases and heuristics or misrepresenting information. We also put forward a map of harms from AI persuasion, including definitions and examples of economic, physical, environmental, psychological, sociocultural, political, privacy, and autonomy harm. We then introduce a map of mechanisms that contribute to harmful persuasion. Lastly, we provide an overview of approaches that can be used to mitigate against process harms of persuasion, including prompt engineering for manipulation classification and red teaming. Future work will operationalise these mitigations and study the interaction between different types of mechanisms of persuasion. △ Less

Submitted 23 April, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

Robust agents learn causal world models

Authors: Jonathan Richens, Tom Everitt

Abstract: It has long been hypothesised that causal reasoning plays a fundamental role in robust and general intelligence. However, it is not known if agents must learn causal models in order to generalise to new domains, or if other inductive biases are sufficient. We answer this question, showing that any agent capable of satisfying a regret bound under a large set of distributional shifts must have learn… ▽ More It has long been hypothesised that causal reasoning plays a fundamental role in robust and general intelligence. However, it is not known if agents must learn causal models in order to generalise to new domains, or if other inductive biases are sufficient. We answer this question, showing that any agent capable of satisfying a regret bound under a large set of distributional shifts must have learned an approximate causal model of the data generating process, which converges to the true causal model for optimal agents. We discuss the implications of this result for several research areas including transfer learning and causal inference. △ Less

Submitted 19 July, 2024; v1 submitted 16 February, 2024; originally announced February 2024.

Comments: ICLR 2024 (oral). Updated agents section, new corollary

The Reasons that Agents Act: Intention and Instrumental Goals

Authors: Francis Rhys Ward, Matt MacDermott, Francesco Belardinelli, Francesca Toni, Tom Everitt

Abstract: Intention is an important and challenging concept in AI. It is important because it underlies many other concepts we care about, such as agency, manipulation, legal responsibility, and blame. However, ascribing intent to AI systems is contentious, and there is no universally accepted theory of intention applicable to AI agents. We operationalise the intention with which an agent acts, relating to… ▽ More Intention is an important and challenging concept in AI. It is important because it underlies many other concepts we care about, such as agency, manipulation, legal responsibility, and blame. However, ascribing intent to AI systems is contentious, and there is no universally accepted theory of intention applicable to AI agents. We operationalise the intention with which an agent acts, relating to the reasons it chooses its decision. We introduce a formal definition of intention in structural causal influence models, grounded in the philosophy literature on intent and applicable to real-world machine learning systems. Through a number of examples and results, we show that our definition captures the intuitive notion of intent and satisfies desiderata set-out by past work. In addition, we show how our definition relates to past concepts, including actual causality, and the notion of instrumental goals, which is a core idea in the literature on safe AI agents. Finally, we demonstrate how our definition can be used to infer the intentions of reinforcement learning agents and language models from their behaviour. △ Less

Submitted 15 February, 2024; v1 submitted 11 February, 2024; originally announced February 2024.

Comments: AAMAS24

Honesty Is the Best Policy: Defining and Mitigating AI Deception

Authors: Francis Rhys Ward, Francesco Belardinelli, Francesca Toni, Tom Everitt

Abstract: Deceptive agents are a challenge for the safety, trustworthiness, and cooperation of AI systems. We focus on the problem that agents might deceive in order to achieve their goals (for instance, in our experiments with language models, the goal of being evaluated as truthful). There are a number of existing definitions of deception in the literature on game theory and symbolic AI, but there is no o… ▽ More Deceptive agents are a challenge for the safety, trustworthiness, and cooperation of AI systems. We focus on the problem that agents might deceive in order to achieve their goals (for instance, in our experiments with language models, the goal of being evaluated as truthful). There are a number of existing definitions of deception in the literature on game theory and symbolic AI, but there is no overarching theory of deception for learning agents in games. We introduce a formal definition of deception in structural causal games, grounded in the philosophy literature, and applicable to real-world machine learning systems. Several examples and results illustrate that our formal definition aligns with the philosophical and commonsense meaning of deception. Our main technical result is to provide graphical criteria for deception. We show, experimentally, that these results can be used to mitigate deception in reinforcement learning agents and language models. △ Less

Submitted 3 December, 2023; originally announced December 2023.

Comments: Accepted as a spotlight at the 37th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2023)

Characterising Decision Theories with Mechanised Causal Graphs

Authors: Matt MacDermott, Tom Everitt, Francesco Belardinelli

Abstract: How should my own decisions affect my beliefs about the outcomes I expect to achieve? If taking a certain action makes me view myself as a certain type of person, it might affect how I think others view me, and how I view others who are similar to me. This can influence my expected utility calculations and change which action I perceive to be best. Whether and how it should is subject to debate, w… ▽ More How should my own decisions affect my beliefs about the outcomes I expect to achieve? If taking a certain action makes me view myself as a certain type of person, it might affect how I think others view me, and how I view others who are similar to me. This can influence my expected utility calculations and change which action I perceive to be best. Whether and how it should is subject to debate, with contenders for how to think about it including evidential decision theory, causal decision theory, and functional decision theory. In this paper, we show that mechanised causal models can be used to characterise and differentiate the most important decision theories, and generate a taxonomy of different decision theories. △ Less

Submitted 20 July, 2023; originally announced July 2023.

Human Control: Definitions and Algorithms

Authors: Ryan Carey, Tom Everitt

Abstract: How can humans stay in control of advanced artificial intelligence systems? One proposal is corrigibility, which requires the agent to follow the instructions of a human overseer, without inappropriately influencing them. In this paper, we formally define a variant of corrigibility called shutdown instructability, and show that it implies appropriate shutdown behavior, retention of human autonomy,… ▽ More How can humans stay in control of advanced artificial intelligence systems? One proposal is corrigibility, which requires the agent to follow the instructions of a human overseer, without inappropriately influencing them. In this paper, we formally define a variant of corrigibility called shutdown instructability, and show that it implies appropriate shutdown behavior, retention of human autonomy, and avoidance of user harm. We also analyse the related concepts of non-obstruction and shutdown alignment, three previously proposed algorithms for human control, and one new algorithm. △ Less

Submitted 31 May, 2023; originally announced May 2023.

Comments: UAI 2023

Reasoning about Causality in Games

Authors: Lewis Hammond, James Fox, Tom Everitt, Ryan Carey, Alessandro Abate, Michael Wooldridge

Abstract: Causal reasoning and game-theoretic reasoning are fundamental topics in artificial intelligence, among many other disciplines: this paper is concerned with their intersection. Despite their importance, a formal framework that supports both these forms of reasoning has, until now, been lacking. We offer a solution in the form of (structural) causal games, which can be seen as extending Pearl's caus… ▽ More Causal reasoning and game-theoretic reasoning are fundamental topics in artificial intelligence, among many other disciplines: this paper is concerned with their intersection. Despite their importance, a formal framework that supports both these forms of reasoning has, until now, been lacking. We offer a solution in the form of (structural) causal games, which can be seen as extending Pearl's causal hierarchy to the game-theoretic domain, or as extending Koller and Milch's multi-agent influence diagrams to the causal domain. We then consider three key questions: i) How can the (causal) dependencies in games - either between variables, or between strategies - be modelled in a uniform, principled manner? ii) How may causal queries be computed in causal games, and what assumptions does this require? iii) How do causal games compare to existing formalisms? To address question i), we introduce mechanised games, which encode dependencies between agents' decision rules and the distributions governing the game. In response to question ii), we present definitions of predictions, interventions, and counterfactuals, and discuss the assumptions required for each. Regarding question iii), we describe correspondences between causal games and other formalisms, and explain how causal games can be used to answer queries that other causal or game-theoretic models do not support. Finally, we highlight possible applications of causal games, aided by an extensive open-source Python library. △ Less

Submitted 17 April, 2023; v1 submitted 5 January, 2023; originally announced January 2023.

Comments: Published in Artificial Intelligence (2023)

Discovering Agents

Authors: Zachary Kenton, Ramana Kumar, Sebastian Farquhar, Jonathan Richens, Matt MacDermott, Tom Everitt

Abstract: Causal models of agents have been used to analyse the safety aspects of machine learning systems. But identifying agents is non-trivial -- often the causal model is just assumed by the modeler without much justification -- and modelling failures can lead to mistakes in the safety analysis. This paper proposes the first formal causal definition of agents -- roughly that agents are systems that woul… ▽ More Causal models of agents have been used to analyse the safety aspects of machine learning systems. But identifying agents is non-trivial -- often the causal model is just assumed by the modeler without much justification -- and modelling failures can lead to mistakes in the safety analysis. This paper proposes the first formal causal definition of agents -- roughly that agents are systems that would adapt their policy if their actions influenced the world in a different way. From this we derive the first causal discovery algorithm for discovering agents from empirical data, and give algorithms for translating between causal models and game-theoretic influence diagrams. We demonstrate our approach by resolving some previous confusions caused by incorrect causal modelling of agents. △ Less

Submitted 24 August, 2022; v1 submitted 17 August, 2022; originally announced August 2022.

Comments: Some typos corrected

Path-Specific Objectives for Safer Agent Incentives

Authors: Sebastian Farquhar, Ryan Carey, Tom Everitt

Abstract: We present a general framework for training safe agents whose naive incentives are unsafe. As an example, manipulative or deceptive behaviour can improve rewards but should be avoided. Most approaches fail here: agents maximize expected return by any means necessary. We formally describe settings with 'delicate' parts of the state which should not be used as a means to an end. We then train agents… ▽ More We present a general framework for training safe agents whose naive incentives are unsafe. As an example, manipulative or deceptive behaviour can improve rewards but should be avoided. Most approaches fail here: agents maximize expected return by any means necessary. We formally describe settings with 'delicate' parts of the state which should not be used as a means to an end. We then train agents to maximize the causal effect of actions on the expected return which is not mediated by the delicate parts of state, using Causal Influence Diagram analysis. The resulting agents have no incentive to control the delicate state. We further show how our framework unifies and generalizes existing proposals. △ Less

Submitted 21 April, 2022; originally announced April 2022.

Comments: Presented at AAAI 2022

A Complete Criterion for Value of Information in Soluble Influence Diagrams

Authors: Chris van Merwijk, Ryan Carey, Tom Everitt

Abstract: Influence diagrams have recently been used to analyse the safety and fairness properties of AI systems. A key building block for this analysis is a graphical criterion for value of information (VoI). This paper establishes the first complete graphical criterion for VoI in influence diagrams with multiple decisions. Along the way, we establish two important techniques for proving properties of mult… ▽ More Influence diagrams have recently been used to analyse the safety and fairness properties of AI systems. A key building block for this analysis is a graphical criterion for value of information (VoI). This paper establishes the first complete graphical criterion for VoI in influence diagrams with multiple decisions. Along the way, we establish two important techniques for proving properties of multi-decision influence diagrams: ID homomorphisms are structure-preserving transformations of influence diagrams, while a Tree of Systems is collection of paths that captures how information and control can flow in an influence diagram. △ Less

Submitted 23 February, 2022; originally announced February 2022.

Comments: In Proceedings of the AAAI 2022 Conference

Why Fair Labels Can Yield Unfair Predictions: Graphical Conditions for Introduced Unfairness

Authors: Carolyn Ashurst, Ryan Carey, Silvia Chiappa, Tom Everitt

Abstract: In addition to reproducing discriminatory relationships in the training data, machine learning systems can also introduce or amplify discriminatory effects. We refer to this as introduced unfairness, and investigate the conditions under which it may arise. To this end, we propose introduced total variation as a measure of introduced unfairness, and establish graphical conditions under which it may… ▽ More In addition to reproducing discriminatory relationships in the training data, machine learning systems can also introduce or amplify discriminatory effects. We refer to this as introduced unfairness, and investigate the conditions under which it may arise. To this end, we propose introduced total variation as a measure of introduced unfairness, and establish graphical conditions under which it may be incentivised to occur. These criteria imply that adding the sensitive attribute as a feature removes the incentive for introduced variation under well-behaved loss functions. Additionally, taking a causal perspective, introduced path-specific effects shed light on the issue of when specific paths should be considered fair. △ Less

Submitted 23 February, 2022; v1 submitted 22 February, 2022; originally announced February 2022.

Comments: In Proceedings of the AAAI 2022 Conference

Shaking the foundations: delusions in sequence models for interaction and control

Authors: Pedro A. Ortega, Markus Kunesch, Grégoire Delétang, Tim Genewein, Jordi Grau-Moya, Joel Veness, Jonas Buchli, Jonas Degrave, Bilal Piot, Julien Perolat, Tom Everitt, Corentin Tallec, Emilio Parisotto, Tom Erez, Yutian Chen, Scott Reed, Marcus Hutter, Nando de Freitas, Shane Legg

Abstract: The recent phenomenal success of language models has reinvigorated machine learning research, and large sequence models such as transformers are being applied to a variety of domains. One important problem class that has remained relatively elusive however is purposeful adaptive behavior. Currently there is a common perception that sequence models "lack the understanding of the cause and effect of… ▽ More The recent phenomenal success of language models has reinvigorated machine learning research, and large sequence models such as transformers are being applied to a variety of domains. One important problem class that has remained relatively elusive however is purposeful adaptive behavior. Currently there is a common perception that sequence models "lack the understanding of the cause and effect of their actions" leading them to draw incorrect inferences due to auto-suggestive delusions. In this report we explain where this mismatch originates, and show that it can be resolved by treating actions as causal interventions. Finally, we show that in supervised learning, one can teach a system to condition or intervene on data by training with factual and counterfactual error signals respectively. △ Less

Submitted 20 October, 2021; originally announced October 2021.

Comments: DeepMind Tech Report, 16 pages, 4 figures

Alignment of Language Agents

Authors: Zachary Kenton, Tom Everitt, Laura Weidinger, Iason Gabriel, Vladimir Mikulik, Geoffrey Irving

Abstract: For artificial intelligence to be beneficial to humans the behaviour of AI agents needs to be aligned with what humans want. In this paper we discuss some behavioural issues for language agents, arising from accidental misspecification by the system designer. We highlight some ways that misspecification can occur and discuss some behavioural issues that could arise from misspecification, including… ▽ More For artificial intelligence to be beneficial to humans the behaviour of AI agents needs to be aligned with what humans want. In this paper we discuss some behavioural issues for language agents, arising from accidental misspecification by the system designer. We highlight some ways that misspecification can occur and discuss some behavioural issues that could arise from misspecification, including deceptive or manipulative language, and review some approaches for avoiding these issues. △ Less

Submitted 26 March, 2021; originally announced March 2021.

How RL Agents Behave When Their Actions Are Modified

Authors: Eric D. Langlois, Tom Everitt

Abstract: Reinforcement learning in complex environments may require supervision to prevent the agent from attempting dangerous actions. As a result of supervisor intervention, the executed action may differ from the action specified by the policy. How does this affect learning? We present the Modified-Action Markov Decision Process, an extension of the MDP model that allows actions to differ from the polic… ▽ More Reinforcement learning in complex environments may require supervision to prevent the agent from attempting dangerous actions. As a result of supervisor intervention, the executed action may differ from the action specified by the policy. How does this affect learning? We present the Modified-Action Markov Decision Process, an extension of the MDP model that allows actions to differ from the policy. We analyze the asymptotic behaviours of common reinforcement learning algorithms in this setting and show that they adapt in different ways: some completely ignore modifications while others go to various lengths in trying to avoid action modifications that decrease reward. By choosing the right algorithm, developers can prevent their agents from learning to circumvent interruptions or constraints, and better control agent responses to other kinds of action modification, like self-damage. △ Less

Submitted 30 June, 2021; v1 submitted 15 February, 2021; originally announced February 2021.

Comments: 10 pages (+6 appendix); 7 figures. Published in the AAAI 2021 Conference on AI. Code is available at https://github.com/edlanglois/mamdp

Journal ref: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(13), 11586-11594 (2021)

Equilibrium Refinements for Multi-Agent Influence Diagrams: Theory and Practice

Authors: Lewis Hammond, James Fox, Tom Everitt, Alessandro Abate, Michael Wooldridge

Abstract: Multi-agent influence diagrams (MAIDs) are a popular form of graphical model that, for certain classes of games, have been shown to offer key complexity and explainability advantages over traditional extensive form game (EFG) representations. In this paper, we extend previous work on MAIDs by introducing the concept of a MAID subgame, as well as subgame perfect and trembling hand perfect equilibri… ▽ More Multi-agent influence diagrams (MAIDs) are a popular form of graphical model that, for certain classes of games, have been shown to offer key complexity and explainability advantages over traditional extensive form game (EFG) representations. In this paper, we extend previous work on MAIDs by introducing the concept of a MAID subgame, as well as subgame perfect and trembling hand perfect equilibrium refinements. We then prove several equivalence results between MAIDs and EFGs. Finally, we describe an open source implementation for reasoning about MAIDs and computing their equilibria. △ Less

Submitted 9 February, 2021; originally announced February 2021.

Comments: Accepted to the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-21)

Agent Incentives: A Causal Perspective

Authors: Tom Everitt, Ryan Carey, Eric Langlois, Pedro A Ortega, Shane Legg

Abstract: We present a framework for analysing agent incentives using causal influence diagrams. We establish that a well-known criterion for value of information is complete. We propose a new graphical criterion for value of control, establishing its soundness and completeness. We also introduce two new concepts for incentive analysis: response incentives indicate which changes in the environment affect an… ▽ More We present a framework for analysing agent incentives using causal influence diagrams. We establish that a well-known criterion for value of information is complete. We propose a new graphical criterion for value of control, establishing its soundness and completeness. We also introduce two new concepts for incentive analysis: response incentives indicate which changes in the environment affect an optimal decision, while instrumental control incentives establish whether an agent can influence its utility via a variable X. For both new concepts, we provide sound and complete graphical criteria. We show by example how these results can help with evaluating the safety and fairness of an AI system. △ Less

Submitted 15 March, 2021; v1 submitted 2 February, 2021; originally announced February 2021.

Comments: In Proceedings of the AAAI 2021 Conference. Supersedes arXiv:1902.09980, arXiv:2001.07118

Avoiding Tampering Incentives in Deep RL via Decoupled Approval

Authors: Jonathan Uesato, Ramana Kumar, Victoria Krakovna, Tom Everitt, Richard Ngo, Shane Legg

Abstract: How can we design agents that pursue a given objective when all feedback mechanisms are influenceable by the agent? Standard RL algorithms assume a secure reward function, and can thus perform poorly in settings where agents can tamper with the reward-generating mechanism. We present a principled solution to the problem of learning from influenceable feedback, which combines approval with a decoup… ▽ More How can we design agents that pursue a given objective when all feedback mechanisms are influenceable by the agent? Standard RL algorithms assume a secure reward function, and can thus perform poorly in settings where agents can tamper with the reward-generating mechanism. We present a principled solution to the problem of learning from influenceable feedback, which combines approval with a decoupled feedback collection procedure. For a natural class of corruption functions, decoupled approval algorithms have aligned incentives both at convergence and for their local updates. Empirically, they also scale to complex 3D environments where tampering is possible. △ Less

Submitted 17 November, 2020; originally announced November 2020.

REALab: An Embedded Perspective on Tampering

Authors: Ramana Kumar, Jonathan Uesato, Richard Ngo, Tom Everitt, Victoria Krakovna, Shane Legg

Abstract: This paper describes REALab, a platform for embedded agency research in reinforcement learning (RL). REALab is designed to model the structure of tampering problems that may arise in real-world deployments of RL. Standard Markov Decision Process (MDP) formulations of RL and simulated environments mirroring the MDP structure assume secure access to feedback (e.g., rewards). This may be unrealistic… ▽ More This paper describes REALab, a platform for embedded agency research in reinforcement learning (RL). REALab is designed to model the structure of tampering problems that may arise in real-world deployments of RL. Standard Markov Decision Process (MDP) formulations of RL and simulated environments mirroring the MDP structure assume secure access to feedback (e.g., rewards). This may be unrealistic in settings where agents are embedded and can corrupt the processes producing feedback (e.g., human supervisors, or an implemented reward function). We describe an alternative Corrupt Feedback MDP formulation and the REALab environment platform, which both avoid the secure feedback assumption. We hope the design of REALab provides a useful perspective on tampering problems, and that the platform may serve as a unit test for the presence of tampering incentives in RL agent designs. △ Less

Submitted 17 November, 2020; originally announced November 2020.

The Incentives that Shape Behaviour

Authors: Ryan Carey, Eric Langlois, Tom Everitt, Shane Legg

Abstract: Which variables does an agent have an incentive to control with its decision, and which variables does it have an incentive to respond to? We formalise these incentives, and demonstrate unique graphical criteria for detecting them in any single decision causal influence diagram. To this end, we introduce structural causal influence models, a hybrid of the influence diagram and structural causal mo… ▽ More Which variables does an agent have an incentive to control with its decision, and which variables does it have an incentive to respond to? We formalise these incentives, and demonstrate unique graphical criteria for detecting them in any single decision causal influence diagram. To this end, we introduce structural causal influence models, a hybrid of the influence diagram and structural causal model frameworks. Finally, we illustrate how these incentives predict agent incentives in both fairness and AI safety applications. △ Less

Submitted 15 March, 2021; v1 submitted 20 January, 2020; originally announced January 2020.

Comments: In SafeAI workshop at AAAI. Superseded by arXiv:2102.01685

ACM Class: I.2.6; I.2.8

Reward Tampering Problems and Solutions in Reinforcement Learning: A Causal Influence Diagram Perspective

Authors: Tom Everitt, Marcus Hutter, Ramana Kumar, Victoria Krakovna

Abstract: Can humans get arbitrarily capable reinforcement learning (RL) agents to do their bidding? Or will sufficiently capable RL agents always find ways to bypass their intended objectives by shortcutting their reward signal? This question impacts how far RL can be scaled, and whether alternative paradigms must be developed in order to build safe artificial general intelligence. In this paper, we study… ▽ More Can humans get arbitrarily capable reinforcement learning (RL) agents to do their bidding? Or will sufficiently capable RL agents always find ways to bypass their intended objectives by shortcutting their reward signal? This question impacts how far RL can be scaled, and whether alternative paradigms must be developed in order to build safe artificial general intelligence. In this paper, we study when an RL agent has an instrumental goal to tamper with its reward process, and describe design principles that prevent instrumental goals for two different types of reward tampering (reward function tampering and RF-input tampering). Combined, the design principles can prevent both types of reward tampering from being instrumental goals. The analysis benefits from causal influence diagrams to provide intuitive yet precise formalizations. △ Less

Submitted 26 March, 2021; v1 submitted 13 August, 2019; originally announced August 2019.

Comments: Accepted to Synthese, March 2021

Modeling AGI Safety Frameworks with Causal Influence Diagrams

Authors: Tom Everitt, Ramana Kumar, Victoria Krakovna, Shane Legg

Abstract: Proposals for safe AGI systems are typically made at the level of frameworks, specifying how the components of the proposed system should be trained and interact with each other. In this paper, we model and compare the most promising AGI safety frameworks using causal influence diagrams. The diagrams show the optimization objective and causal assumptions of the framework. The unified representatio… ▽ More Proposals for safe AGI systems are typically made at the level of frameworks, specifying how the components of the proposed system should be trained and interact with each other. In this paper, we model and compare the most promising AGI safety frameworks using causal influence diagrams. The diagrams show the optimization objective and causal assumptions of the framework. The unified representation permits easy comparison of frameworks and their assumptions. We hope that the diagrams will serve as an accessible and visual introduction to the main AGI safety frameworks. △ Less

Submitted 20 June, 2019; originally announced June 2019.

Comments: IJCAI 2019 AI Safety Workshop

Understanding Agent Incentives using Causal Influence Diagrams. Part I: Single Action Settings

Authors: Tom Everitt, Pedro A. Ortega, Elizabeth Barnes, Shane Legg

Abstract: Agents are systems that optimize an objective function in an environment. Together, the goal and the environment induce secondary objectives, incentives. Modeling the agent-environment interaction using causal influence diagrams, we can answer two fundamental questions about an agent's incentives directly from the graph: (1) which nodes can the agent have an incentivize to observe, and (2) which n… ▽ More Agents are systems that optimize an objective function in an environment. Together, the goal and the environment induce secondary objectives, incentives. Modeling the agent-environment interaction using causal influence diagrams, we can answer two fundamental questions about an agent's incentives directly from the graph: (1) which nodes can the agent have an incentivize to observe, and (2) which nodes can the agent have an incentivize to control? The answers tell us which information and influence points need extra protection. For example, we may want a classifier for job applications to not use the ethnicity of the candidate, and a reinforcement learning agent not to take direct control of its reward mechanism. Different algorithms and training paradigms can lead to different causal influence diagrams, so our method can be used to identify algorithms with problematic incentives and help in designing algorithms with better incentives. △ Less

Submitted 20 January, 2022; v1 submitted 26 February, 2019; originally announced February 2019.

Comments: Mostly superseded by arXiv:2102.01685

ACM Class: I.2.6; I.2.8

Scalable agent alignment via reward modeling: a research direction

Authors: Jan Leike, David Krueger, Tom Everitt, Miljan Martic, Vishal Maini, Shane Legg

Abstract: One obstacle to applying reinforcement learning algorithms to real-world problems is the lack of suitable reward functions. Designing such reward functions is difficult in part because the user only has an implicit understanding of the task objective. This gives rise to the agent alignment problem: how do we create agents that behave in accordance with the user's intentions? We outline a high-leve… ▽ More One obstacle to applying reinforcement learning algorithms to real-world problems is the lack of suitable reward functions. Designing such reward functions is difficult in part because the user only has an implicit understanding of the task objective. This gives rise to the agent alignment problem: how do we create agents that behave in accordance with the user's intentions? We outline a high-level research direction to solve the agent alignment problem centered around reward modeling: learning a reward function from interaction with the user and optimizing the learned reward function with reinforcement learning. We discuss the key challenges we expect to face when scaling reward modeling to complex and general domains, concrete approaches to mitigate these challenges, and ways to establish trust in the resulting agents. △ Less

Submitted 19 November, 2018; originally announced November 2018.

AGI Safety Literature Review

Authors: Tom Everitt, Gary Lea, Marcus Hutter

Abstract: The development of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) promises to be a major event. Along with its many potential benefits, it also raises serious safety concerns (Bostrom, 2014). The intention of this paper is to provide an easily accessible and up-to-date collection of references for the emerging field of AGI safety. A significant number of safety problems for AGI have been identified. We lis… ▽ More The development of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) promises to be a major event. Along with its many potential benefits, it also raises serious safety concerns (Bostrom, 2014). The intention of this paper is to provide an easily accessible and up-to-date collection of references for the emerging field of AGI safety. A significant number of safety problems for AGI have been identified. We list these, and survey recent research on solving them. We also cover works on how best to think of AGI from the limited knowledge we have today, predictions for when AGI will first be created, and what will happen after its creation. Finally, we review the current public policy on AGI. △ Less

Submitted 21 May, 2018; v1 submitted 3 May, 2018; originally announced May 2018.

Comments: Published in International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2018

AI Safety Gridworlds

Authors: Jan Leike, Miljan Martic, Victoria Krakovna, Pedro A. Ortega, Tom Everitt, Andrew Lefrancq, Laurent Orseau, Shane Legg

Abstract: We present a suite of reinforcement learning environments illustrating various safety properties of intelligent agents. These problems include safe interruptibility, avoiding side effects, absent supervisor, reward gaming, safe exploration, as well as robustness to self-modification, distributional shift, and adversaries. To measure compliance with the intended safe behavior, we equip each environ… ▽ More We present a suite of reinforcement learning environments illustrating various safety properties of intelligent agents. These problems include safe interruptibility, avoiding side effects, absent supervisor, reward gaming, safe exploration, as well as robustness to self-modification, distributional shift, and adversaries. To measure compliance with the intended safe behavior, we equip each environment with a performance function that is hidden from the agent. This allows us to categorize AI safety problems into robustness and specification problems, depending on whether the performance function corresponds to the observed reward function. We evaluate A2C and Rainbow, two recent deep reinforcement learning agents, on our environments and show that they are not able to solve them satisfactorily. △ Less

Submitted 28 November, 2017; v1 submitted 27 November, 2017; originally announced November 2017.

A Game-Theoretic Analysis of the Off-Switch Game

Authors: Tobias Wängberg, Mikael Böörs, Elliot Catt, Tom Everitt, Marcus Hutter

Abstract: The off-switch game is a game theoretic model of a highly intelligent robot interacting with a human. In the original paper by Hadfield-Menell et al. (2016), the analysis is not fully game-theoretic as the human is modelled as an irrational player, and the robot's best action is only calculated under unrealistic normality and soft-max assumptions. In this paper, we make the analysis fully game the… ▽ More The off-switch game is a game theoretic model of a highly intelligent robot interacting with a human. In the original paper by Hadfield-Menell et al. (2016), the analysis is not fully game-theoretic as the human is modelled as an irrational player, and the robot's best action is only calculated under unrealistic normality and soft-max assumptions. In this paper, we make the analysis fully game theoretic, by modelling the human as a rational player with a random utility function. As a consequence, we are able to easily calculate the robot's best action for arbitrary belief and irrationality assumptions. △ Less

Submitted 13 August, 2017; originally announced August 2017.

Journal ref: Artificial General Intelligence: 10th International Conference, AGI 2017, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, August 15-18, 2017, Proceedings, pages 167-177

Count-Based Exploration in Feature Space for Reinforcement Learning

Authors: Jarryd Martin, Suraj Narayanan Sasikumar, Tom Everitt, Marcus Hutter

Abstract: We introduce a new count-based optimistic exploration algorithm for Reinforcement Learning (RL) that is feasible in environments with high-dimensional state-action spaces. The success of RL algorithms in these domains depends crucially on generalisation from limited training experience. Function approximation techniques enable RL agents to generalise in order to estimate the value of unvisited sta… ▽ More We introduce a new count-based optimistic exploration algorithm for Reinforcement Learning (RL) that is feasible in environments with high-dimensional state-action spaces. The success of RL algorithms in these domains depends crucially on generalisation from limited training experience. Function approximation techniques enable RL agents to generalise in order to estimate the value of unvisited states, but at present few methods enable generalisation regarding uncertainty. This has prevented the combination of scalable RL algorithms with efficient exploration strategies that drive the agent to reduce its uncertainty. We present a new method for computing a generalised state visit-count, which allows the agent to estimate the uncertainty associated with any state. Our φ-pseudocount achieves generalisation by exploiting same feature representation of the state space that is used for value function approximation. States that have less frequently observed features are deemed more uncertain. The φ-Exploration-Bonus algorithm rewards the agent for exploring in feature space rather than in the untransformed state space. The method is simpler and less computationally expensive than some previous proposals, and achieves near state-of-the-art results on high-dimensional RL benchmarks. △ Less

Submitted 25 June, 2017; originally announced June 2017.

Comments: Conference: Twenty-sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-17), 8 pages, 1 figure

ACM Class: I.2.6

Reinforcement Learning with a Corrupted Reward Channel

Authors: Tom Everitt, Victoria Krakovna, Laurent Orseau, Marcus Hutter, Shane Legg

Abstract: No real-world reward function is perfect. Sensory errors and software bugs may result in RL agents observing higher (or lower) rewards than they should. For example, a reinforcement learning agent may prefer states where a sensory error gives it the maximum reward, but where the true reward is actually small. We formalise this problem as a generalised Markov Decision Problem called Corrupt Reward… ▽ More No real-world reward function is perfect. Sensory errors and software bugs may result in RL agents observing higher (or lower) rewards than they should. For example, a reinforcement learning agent may prefer states where a sensory error gives it the maximum reward, but where the true reward is actually small. We formalise this problem as a generalised Markov Decision Problem called Corrupt Reward MDP. Traditional RL methods fare poorly in CRMDPs, even under strong simplifying assumptions and when trying to compensate for the possibly corrupt rewards. Two ways around the problem are investigated. First, by giving the agent richer data, such as in inverse reinforcement learning and semi-supervised reinforcement learning, reward corruption stemming from systematic sensory errors may sometimes be completely managed. Second, by using randomisation to blunt the agent's optimisation, reward corruption can be partially managed under some assumptions. △ Less

Submitted 19 August, 2017; v1 submitted 23 May, 2017; originally announced May 2017.

Comments: A shorter version of this report was accepted to IJCAI 2017 AI and Autonomy track

ACM Class: I.2.6; I.2.8

Free Lunch for Optimisation under the Universal Distribution

Authors: Tom Everitt, Tor Lattimore, Marcus Hutter

Abstract: Function optimisation is a major challenge in computer science. The No Free Lunch theorems state that if all functions with the same histogram are assumed to be equally probable then no algorithm outperforms any other in expectation. We argue against the uniform assumption and suggest a universal prior exists for which there is a free lunch, but where no particular class of functions is favoured o… ▽ More Function optimisation is a major challenge in computer science. The No Free Lunch theorems state that if all functions with the same histogram are assumed to be equally probable then no algorithm outperforms any other in expectation. We argue against the uniform assumption and suggest a universal prior exists for which there is a free lunch, but where no particular class of functions is favoured over another. We also prove upper and lower bounds on the size of the free lunch. △ Less

Submitted 16 August, 2016; originally announced August 2016.

ACM Class: G.1.6

Journal ref: Proceedings of 2014 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), July 6-11, 2014, Beijing, China, pp. 167-174

Death and Suicide in Universal Artificial Intelligence

Authors: Jarryd Martin, Tom Everitt, Marcus Hutter

Abstract: Reinforcement learning (RL) is a general paradigm for studying intelligent behaviour, with applications ranging from artificial intelligence to psychology and economics. AIXI is a universal solution to the RL problem; it can learn any computable environment. A technical subtlety of AIXI is that it is defined using a mixture over semimeasures that need not sum to 1, rather than over proper probabil… ▽ More Reinforcement learning (RL) is a general paradigm for studying intelligent behaviour, with applications ranging from artificial intelligence to psychology and economics. AIXI is a universal solution to the RL problem; it can learn any computable environment. A technical subtlety of AIXI is that it is defined using a mixture over semimeasures that need not sum to 1, rather than over proper probability measures. In this work we argue that the shortfall of a semimeasure can naturally be interpreted as the agent's estimate of the probability of its death. We formally define death for generally intelligent agents like AIXI, and prove a number of related theorems about their behaviour. Notable discoveries include that agent behaviour can change radically under positive linear transformations of the reward signal (from suicidal to dogmatically self-preserving), and that the agent's posterior belief that it will survive increases over time. △ Less

Submitted 2 June, 2016; originally announced June 2016.

Comments: Conference: Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) 2016 13 pages, 2 figures

ACM Class: I.2.0; I.2.6

Avoiding Wireheading with Value Reinforcement Learning

Authors: Tom Everitt, Marcus Hutter

Abstract: How can we design good goals for arbitrarily intelligent agents? Reinforcement learning (RL) is a natural approach. Unfortunately, RL does not work well for generally intelligent agents, as RL agents are incentivised to shortcut the reward sensor for maximum reward -- the so-called wireheading problem. In this paper we suggest an alternative to RL called value reinforcement learning (VRL). In VRL,… ▽ More How can we design good goals for arbitrarily intelligent agents? Reinforcement learning (RL) is a natural approach. Unfortunately, RL does not work well for generally intelligent agents, as RL agents are incentivised to shortcut the reward sensor for maximum reward -- the so-called wireheading problem. In this paper we suggest an alternative to RL called value reinforcement learning (VRL). In VRL, agents use the reward signal to learn a utility function. The VRL setup allows us to remove the incentive to wirehead by placing a constraint on the agent's actions. The constraint is defined in terms of the agent's belief distributions, and does not require an explicit specification of which actions constitute wireheading. △ Less

Submitted 10 May, 2016; originally announced May 2016.

Comments: Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) 2016

Self-Modification of Policy and Utility Function in Rational Agents

Authors: Tom Everitt, Daniel Filan, Mayank Daswani, Marcus Hutter

Abstract: Any agent that is part of the environment it interacts with and has versatile actuators (such as arms and fingers), will in principle have the ability to self-modify -- for example by changing its own source code. As we continue to create more and more intelligent agents, chances increase that they will learn about this ability. The question is: will they want to use it? For example, highly intell… ▽ More Any agent that is part of the environment it interacts with and has versatile actuators (such as arms and fingers), will in principle have the ability to self-modify -- for example by changing its own source code. As we continue to create more and more intelligent agents, chances increase that they will learn about this ability. The question is: will they want to use it? For example, highly intelligent systems may find ways to change their goals to something more easily achievable, thereby `escaping' the control of their designers. In an important paper, Omohundro (2008) argued that goal preservation is a fundamental drive of any intelligent system, since a goal is more likely to be achieved if future versions of the agent strive towards the same goal. In this paper, we formalise this argument in general reinforcement learning, and explore situations where it fails. Our conclusion is that the self-modification possibility is harmless if and only if the value function of the agent anticipates the consequences of self-modifications and use the current utility function when evaluating the future. △ Less

Submitted 10 May, 2016; originally announced May 2016.

Comments: Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) 2016

A Topological Approach to Meta-heuristics: Analytical Results on the BFS vs. DFS Algorithm Selection Problem

Authors: Tom Everitt, Marcus Hutter

Abstract: Search is a central problem in artificial intelligence, and breadth-first search (BFS) and depth-first search (DFS) are the two most fundamental ways to search. In this paper we derive estimates for average BFS and DFS runtime. The average runtime estimates can be used to allocate resources or judge the hardness of a problem. They can also be used for selecting the best graph representation, and f… ▽ More Search is a central problem in artificial intelligence, and breadth-first search (BFS) and depth-first search (DFS) are the two most fundamental ways to search. In this paper we derive estimates for average BFS and DFS runtime. The average runtime estimates can be used to allocate resources or judge the hardness of a problem. They can also be used for selecting the best graph representation, and for selecting the faster algorithm out of BFS and DFS. They may also form the basis for an analysis of more advanced search methods. The paper treats both tree search and graph search. For tree search, we employ a probabilistic model of goal distribution; for graph search, the analysis depends on an additional statistic of path redundancy and average branching factor. As an application, we use the results to predict BFS and DFS runtime on two concrete grammar problems and on the N-puzzle. Experimental verification shows that our analytical approximations come close to empirical reality. △ Less

Submitted 12 April, 2018; v1 submitted 9 September, 2015; originally announced September 2015.

Comments: Main results published in 28th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2015

ACM Class: I.2.8

Sequential Extensions of Causal and Evidential Decision Theory

Authors: Tom Everitt, Jan Leike, Marcus Hutter

Abstract: Moving beyond the dualistic view in AI where agent and environment are separated incurs new challenges for decision making, as calculation of expected utility is no longer straightforward. The non-dualistic decision theory literature is split between causal decision theory and evidential decision theory. We extend these decision algorithms to the sequential setting where the agent alternates betwe… ▽ More Moving beyond the dualistic view in AI where agent and environment are separated incurs new challenges for decision making, as calculation of expected utility is no longer straightforward. The non-dualistic decision theory literature is split between causal decision theory and evidential decision theory. We extend these decision algorithms to the sequential setting where the agent alternates between taking actions and observing their consequences. We find that evidential decision theory has two natural extensions while causal decision theory only has one. △ Less

Submitted 24 June, 2015; originally announced June 2015.

Comments: ADT 2015