• the approaches that have been attracting the most attention and funding are dead ends

My personal impression is you are mistaken and the innovation have not stopped, but part of the conversation moved elsewhere.  E.g. taking just ACS, we do have ideas from past 12 months which in our ideal world would fit into this type of glossary - free energy equilibria, levels of sharpness, convergent abstractions, gradual disempowerment risks. Personally I don't feel it is high priority to write them for LW, because they don't fit into the current zeitgeist of the site, which seems directing a lot of attention mostly to:
- advocacy 
- topics a large crowd cares about (e.g. mech interpretability)
- or topics some prolific and good writer cares about (e.g. people will read posts by John Wentworth)
Hot take, but the community loosely associated with active inference is currently better place to think about agent foundations; workshops on topics like 'pluralistic alignment' or 'collective intelligence' have in total more interesting new ideas about what was traditionally understood as alignment; parts of AI safety went totally ML-mainstream, with the fastest conversation happening at x. 
 

I remember this point that yampolskiy made for impossibleness [LW · GW]of AGI alignment on a podcast that as a young field AI safety had underwhelming low hanging fruits, I wonder if all of the major low hanging ones have been plucked.

I think the explanation that more research is closed source pretty compactly explains the issue, combined with labs/companies making a lot of the alignment progress to date.

Also, you probably won't hear about most incremental AI alignment progress on LW, for the simple reason that it probably would be flooded with it, so people will underestimate progress.

Alexander Gietelink Oldenziel does talk about pockets of Deep Expertise in academia, but they aren't activated right now, so it is so far irrelevant to progress.

adding another possible explanation to the list:

• people may feel intimidated or discouraged from sharing ideas because of ~'high standards', or something like: a tendency to require strong evidence that a new idea is not another non-solution proposal, in order to put effort into understanding it.

i have experienced this, but i don't know how common it is.

i just also recalled that janus has said they weren't sure simulators would be received well on LW. simulators was cited in another reply to this as an instance of novel ideas.

It's not just a lesswrong thing (wikipedia).

My feeling is that (like most jargon) it's to avoid ambiguity arising from the fact that "commitment" has multiple meanings. When I google commitment I get the following two definitions:

1. the state or quality of being dedicated to a cause, activity, etc.
2. an engagement or obligation that restricts freedom of action

Precommitment is a synonym for the second meaning, but not the first. When you say, "the agent commits to 1-boxing," there's no ambiguity as to which type of commitment you mean, so it seems pointless. But if you were to say, "commitment can get agents more utility," it might sound like you were saying, "dedication can get agents more utility," which is also true.

The economist RH Strotz introduced the term "precommitment" in his 1955-56 paper "Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization".

Thomas Schelling started writing about similar topics in his 1956 paper "An essay on bargaining", using the term "commitment".

Both terms have been in use since then.

My understanding is commitment is you say that won't swerve first in a game of chicken. Pre-commitment is throwing your steering wheel out the window so that there's no way that you could swerve even if you changed your mind.

It predates lesswrong by decades. I think it’s meant to emphasize that the (pre)commitment is an irrevocable decision that’s made BEFORE the nominal game (the thing that classical game theory analyzes) begins.

Of course, nowadays it’s just modeled as the game starting sooner to encompass different decision points, so it’s not really necessary. But still handy to remind us that it’s irrevocable and made previous to the obvious decision point.

Why should I include any non-sentient systems in my moral circle? I haven't seen a case for that before.

It seems a bit weird to call these "obligations" if the considerations they are based upon are not necessarily dispositive. In common parlance, obligation is generally thought of as "something one is bound to do", i.e., something you must do either because you are force to by law or a contract, etc., or because of a social or moral requirement. But that's a mere linguistic point that others can reasonably disagree on and ultimately doesn't matter all that much anyway. 

On the object level, I suspect there will be a large amount of disagreement on what it means for an AI to "deserve" punishment or credit. I am very uncertain about such matters myself even when thinking about "deservingness" with respect to humans, who not only have a very similar psychological make-up to mine (which allows me to predict with reasonable certainty what their intent was in a given spot) but also exist in the same society as me and are thus expected to follow certain norms and rules that are reasonably clear and well-established. I don't think I know of a canonical way of extrapolating my (often confused and in any case generally intuition-based) principles and thinking about this to the case of AIs, which will likely appear quite alien to me in many respects.

This will probably make the task of "ensur[ing] that others also follow their obligations to AIs" rather tricky, even setting aside the practical enforcement problems. 

I think it's mostly about elite outreach. If you already have a sophisticated model of the situation you shouldn't update too much on it, but it's a reasonably clear signal (for outsiders) that x-risk from A.I. is a credible concern.

I think it's more "Hinton's concerns are evidence that worrying about AI x-risk isn't silly" than "Hinton's concerns are evidence that worrying about AI x-risk is correct". The most common negative response to AI x-risk concerns is (I think) dismissal, and it seems relevant to that to be able to point to someone who (1) clearly has some deep technical knowledge, (2) doesn't seem to be otherwise insane, (3) has no obvious personal stake in making people worry about x-risk, and (4) is very smart, and who thinks AI x-risk is a serious problem.

It's hard to square "ha ha ha, look at those stupid nerds who think AI is magic and expect it to turn into a god" or "ha ha ha, look at those slimy techbros talking up their field to inflate the value of their investments" or "ha ha ha, look at those idiots who don't know that so-called AI systems are just stochastic parrots that obviously will never be able to think" with the fact that one of the people you're laughing at is Geoffrey Hinton.

(I suppose he probably has a pile of Google shares so maybe you could squeeze him into the "techbro talking up his investments" box, but that seems unconvincing to me.)

I think it pretty much only matters as a trivial refutation of (not-object-level) claims that no "serious" people in the field take AI x-risk concerns seriously, and has no bearing on object-level arguments.  My guess is that Hinton is somewhat less confused than Yann but I don't think he's talked about his models in very much depth; I'm mostly just going off the high-level arguments I've seen him make (which round off to "if we make something much smarter than us that we don't know how to control, that might go badly for us").

Yes, outreach. Hinton has now won both the Turing award and the Nobel prize in physics. Basically, he gained maximum reputation. Nobody can convincingly doubt his respectability. If you meet anyone who dismisses warnings about extinction risk from superhuman AI as low status and outside the Overton window, they can be countered with referring to Hinton. He is the ultimate appeal-to-authority. (This is not a very rational argument, but dismissing an idea on the basis of status and Overton windows is even less so.)

I think it's mostly because he's well known and have (especially after the Nobel prize) credentials recognized by the public and elites. Hinton legitimizes the AI safety movement, maybe more than anyone else. 

If you watch his Q&A at METR, he says something along the lines of "I want to retire and don't plan on doing AI safety research. I do outreach and media appearances because I think it's the best way I can help (and because I like seeing myself on TV)." 

And he's continuing to do that. The only real topic he discussed in first phone interview after receiving the prize was AI risk.

I think it is just the cumulative effect that people see yet another prominent AI scientist that "admits" that no one have any clear solution to the possible problem of a run away ASI. Given that the median p(doom) is about 5-10% among AI scientist, people are of course wondering wtf is going on, why are they pursuing a technology with such high risk for humanity if they really think it is that dangerous.

From my perspective - would say it's 7 and 9.

For 7: One AI risk controversy is we do not know/see existing model that pose that risk yet. But there might be models that the frontier companies such as Google may be developing privately, and Hinton maybe saw more there.

For 9: Expert opinions are important and adds credibility generally as the question of how/why AI risks can emerge is by root highly technical. It is important to understand the fundamentals of the learning algorithms. Additionally they might have seen more algorithms. This is important to me as I already work in this space.

Lastly for 10: I do agree it is important to listen to multiple sides as experts do not agree among themselves sometimes. It may be interesting to analyze the background of the speaker to understand their perspectives. Hinton seems to have more background in cognitive science comparing with LeCun who seems to me to be more strictly computer science (but I could be wrong). Not very sure but my guess is these may effect how they view problems. (Only saying they could result in different views, but not commenting on which one is better or worse. This is relatively unhelpful for a person to make decisions on who they want to align more with.)

(oops, this ended up being fairly long-winded! hope you don't mind. feel free to ask for further clarifications.)

There's a bunch of things wrong with your description, so I'll first try to rewrite it in my own words, but still as close to the way you wrote it (so as to try to bridge the gap to your ontology) as possible. Note that I might post QACI 2 somewhat soon, which simplifies a bunch of QACI by locating the user as {whatever is interacting with the computer the AI is running on} rather than by using a beacon.

A first pass is to correct your description to the following:

1. We find a competent honourable human at a particular point in time $H$, like Joe Carlsmith or Wei Dai, and give them a rock engraved with a 1GB secret key, large enough that in counterfactuals it could replace with an entire snapshot of . We also give them the ability to express a 1GB output, eg by writing a 1GB key somewhere which is somehow "signed" as the only . This is part of $H$ — $H$ is not just the human being queried at a particular point in time, it's also the human producing an answer in some way. So $H$ is a function from 1GB bitstring to 1GB bitstring. We define $H^{+}$ as $H$, followed by whichever new process $H$ describes in its output — typically another instance of $H$ except with a different 1GB payload.

2. We want a model $M$ of the agent $H^{+}$. In QACI, we get $M$ by asking a Solomonoff-like ideal reasoner for their best guess about $H^{+}$ after feeding them a bunch of data about the world and the secret key.

3. We then ask $M$ the question $q$, "What's the best utility-function-over-policies to maximise?" to get a utility function $U$$:(O\times A{)}^{\ast }\to R$. We then **ask our solomonoff-like ideal reasoner for their best guess about which action $A$ maximizes $U$.

Indeed, as you ask in question 3, in this description there's not really a reason to make step 3 an extra thing. The important thing to notice here is that model $M$ might get pretty good, but it'll still have uncertainty.

When you say "we get $M$ by asking a Solomonoff-like ideal reasoner for their best guess about $H^{+}$", you're implying that — positing U(M,A) to be the function that says how much utility the utility function returned by model M attributes to action A (in the current history-so-far) — we do something like:

  let M ← oracle(argmax { for model M } 𝔼 { over uncertainty } P(M))
  let A ← oracle(argmax { for action A } U(M, A))
  perform(A)

Indeed, in this scenario, the second line is fairly redundant.

The reason we ask for a utility function is because we want to get a utility function within the counterfactual — we don't want to collapse the uncertainty with an argmax before extracting a utility function, but after. That way, we can do expected-given-uncertainty utility maximization over the full distribution of model-hypotheses, rather than over our best guess about $M$. We do:

  let A ← oracle(argmax { for A } 𝔼 { for M, over uncertainty } P(M) · U(M, A))
  perform(A)

That is, we ask our ideal reasoner (oracle) for the action with the best utility given uncertainty — not just logical uncertainty, but also uncertainty about which $M$. This contrasts with what you describe, in which we first pick the most probable $M$ and then calculate the action with the best utility according only to that most-probable pick.

To answer the rest of your questions:

Is this basically IDA, where Step 1 is serial amplification, Step 2 is imitative distillation, and Step 3 is reward modelling?

Unclear! I'm not familiar enough with IDA, and I've bounced off explanations for it I've seen in the past. QACI doesn't feel to me like it particularly involves the concepts of distillation or amplification, but I guess it does involve the concept of iteration, sure. But I don't get the thing called IDA.

Why not replace Step 1 with Strong HCH or some other amplification scheme?

It's unclear to me how one would design an amplification scheme — see concerns of the general shape expressed here [LW · GW]. The thing I like about my step 1 is that the QACI loop (well, really, graph (well, really, arbitrary computation, but most of the time the user will probably just call themself in sequence)) is that its setup doesn't involve any AI at all — you could go back in time before the industrial revolution and explain the core QACI idea and it would make sense assuming time-travelling-messages magic, and the magic wouldn't have to do any extrapolating. Just tell someone the idea is that they could send a message to {their past self at a particular fixed point in time}. If there's any amplification scheme, it'll be one designed by the user, inside QACI, with arbitrarily long to figure it out.

What does "bajillion" actually mean in Step 1?

As described above, we don't actually pre-determine the length of the sequence, or in fact the shape of the graph at all. Each iteration decides whether to spawn one or several next iteration, or indeed to spawn an arbitrarily different long-reflection process.

Why are we doing Step 3? Wouldn't it be better to just use M directly as our superintelligence? It seems sufficient to achieve radical abundance, life extension, existential security, etc.

Why not ask M for the policy π directly? Or some instruction for constructing π? The instruction could be "Build the policy using our super-duper RL algo with the following reward function..." but it could be anything.

Hopefully my correction above answers these.

What if there's no reward function that should be maximised? Presumably the reward function would need to be "small", i.e. less than a Exabyte, which imposes a maybe-unsatisfiable constraint.

(Again, untractable-to-naively-compute utility function*, not easily-trained-on reward function. If you have an ideal reasoner, why bother with reward functions when you can just straightforwardly do untractable-to-naively-compute utility functions?)

I guess this is kinda philosophical? I have some short thoughts on here. If an exabyte is enough to describe to describe {a communication channel with a human-on-earth} to an AI-on-earth, which I think seems likely, then it's enough to build "just have a nice corrigible assistant ask the humans what they want"-type channels.

Put another way: if there are actions which are preferable to other actions, then it seems to me like utility function are a fully lossless way for counterfactual QACI users to express which kinds of actions they want the AI to perform, which is all we need. If there's something wrong with utility function over worlds, then counterfactual QACI users can output a utility function which favors actions which lead to something other than utility maximization over worlds, for example actions which lead to the construction of a superintelligent corrigible assistant which will help the humans come up with a better scheme.

Why is there no iteration, like in IDA? For example, after Step 2, we could loop back to Step 1 but reassign $H$ as $H$ with oracle access to $M$.

Again, I don't get IDA. Iteration doesn't seem particularly needed? Note that inside QACI, the user does have access to an oracle and to all relevant pieces of hypothesis about which hypothesis it is inhabiting in — this is what, in the QACI math [LW · GW], this line does:

${\text{QACI}}_0$'s distribution over answers demands that the answer payload ${\pi }_r$, when interpreted as math and with all required contextual variables passed as input ($q,\mu 1,\mu 2,\alpha ,{\gamma }_q,\xi$).

Notably, $\alpha$ is the hypothesis for which world the user is being considered in, and ${\gamma }_q,\xi$ for their location within that world. Those are sufficient to fully characterize the hypothesis-for-$H$ that describes them. And because the user doesn't really return just a string but a math function which takes $q,\mu 1,\mu 2,\alpha ,{\gamma }_q,\xi$ as input and returns a string, they can have that math function do arbitrary work — including rederive $H$. In fact, rediriving $H$ is how they call a next iteration: they say (except in math) "call $H$ again (rederived using $q,\mu 1,\mu 2,\alpha ,{\gamma }_q,\xi$), but with this string, and return the result of that." See also this illustration [LW(p) · GW(p)], which is kinda wrong in places but gets the recursion call graph thing right.

Another reason to do "iteration" like this inside the counterfactual rather than in the actual factual world (if that's what IDA does, which I'm only guessing here) is that we don't have as many iteration steps as we want in the factual world — eventually OpenAI or someone else kills everyone, whereas in the counterfactual, the QACI users are the only ones who can make progress, so the QACI users essentially have as long as they want, so long as they don't take too long in each individual counterfactual step or other somewhat easily avoided actions like that.

Why isn't Step 3 recursive reward modelling? i.e. we could collect a bunch of trajectories from $\pi$ and ask $M$ to use those trajectories to improve the reward function.

Unclear if this still means anything given the rest of this post. Ask me again if it does.

You might be able to formalize this using algorithmic information theory /K-complexity.