Thanks for asking. I do indeed think that setup could be a very bad idea. You train for agency, you might well get agency, and that agency might be broadly scoped. 

(It's still not obvious to me that that setup leads to doom by default, though. Just more dangerous than pretraining LLMs.)

"Training setups where we train generally powerful AIs with deep serial reasoning (similar to the internal reasoning in a human brain) for an extremely long time on rich outcomes based RL environment until these AIs learn how to become generically agentic and pursue specific outcomes in a wide variety of circumstances."

My intuition goes something like: this doesn't matter that much if e.g. it happens (sufficiently) after you'd get ~human-level automated AI safety R&D with safer setups, e.g. imitation learning and no/less RL fine-tuning. And I'd expect, e.g. based on current scaling laws, but also on theoretical arguments about the difficulty of imitation learning vs. of RL, that the most efficient way to gain new capabilities, will still be imitation learning at least all the way up to very close to human-level. Then, the closer you get to ~human-level automated AI safety R&D with just imitation learning the less of a 'gap' you'd need to 'cover for' with e.g. RL. And the less RL fine-tuning you might need, the less likely it might be that the weights / representations change much (e.g. they don't seem to change much with current DPO). This might all be conceptually operationalizable in terms of effective compute.

Currently, most capabilities indeed seem to come from pre-training, and fine-tuning only seems to 'steer' them / 'wrap them around'; to the degree that even in-context learning can be competitive at this steering; similarly, 'on understanding how reasoning emerges from language model pre-training'.

Agree with a bunch of these points. EG in Reward is not the optimization target [LW · GW]  I noted that AIXI really does maximize reward, theoretically. I wouldn't say that AIXI means that we have "produced" an architecture which directly optimizes for reward, because AIXI(-tl) is a bad way to spend compute. It doesn't actually effectively optimize reward in reality. 

I'd consider a model-based RL agent to be "reward-driven" if it's effective and most of its "optimization" comes from the direct part and not the leaf-node evaluation (as in e.g. AlphaZero, which was still extremely good without the MCTS). 

I think it is important to recognise this because I think that this is the way that AI systems will ultimately evolve and also where most of the danger lies vs simply scaling up pure generative models. 

"Direct" optimization has not worked - at scale - in the past. Do you think that's going to change, and if so, why? 

Strongly agree, and also want to note that wire-heading is (almost?) always a (near?) optimal policy - i.e. trajectories that tamper with the reward signal and produce high reward will be strongly upweighted, and insofar as the model has sufficient understanding/situational awareness of the reward process and some reasonable level of goal-directedness, this upweighting could plausibly induce a policy explicitly optimizing the reward. 

To add, here's an excerpt from the Q&A on How likely is deceptive alignment? [LW · GW] :

Question: When you say model space, you mean the functional behavior as opposed to the literal parameter space?

Evan: So there’s not quite a one to one mapping because there are multiple implementations of the exact same function in a network. But it's pretty close. I mean, most of the time when I'm saying model space, I'm talking either about the weight space or about the function space where I'm interpreting the function over all inputs, not just the training data.

I only talk about the space of functions restricted to their training performance for this path dependence concept, where we get this view where, well, they end up on the same point, but we want to know how much we need to know about how they got there to understand how they generalize.

I really appreciate the call-out where modern RL for AI does not equal reward-seeking (though I also appreciate @tailcalled [LW · GW] 's reminder [LW(p) · GW(p)] that historical RL did involve reward during deployment); this point has been made before, but not so thoroughly or clearly.

A framing that feels alive for me is that AlphaGo didn't significantly innovate in the goal-directed search (applying MCTS was clever, but not new) but did innovate in both data generation (use search to generate training data, which improves the search) and offline-RL.

scaling up networks, running pretraining + light RLHF, probably doesn't by itself produce a schemer

I agree with this point as stated, but think the probability is more like 5% than 0.1%. So probably no scheming, but this is hardly hugely reassuring. The word "probably" still leaves in a lot of risk; I also think statements like "probably misalignment won't cause x-risk" are true!^[1]

(To your original statement, I'd also add the additional caveat of this occuring "prior to humanity being totally obsoleted by these AIs". I basically just assume this caveat is added everywhere otherwise we're talking about some insane limit.)

Also, are you making sure to condition on "scaling up networks via running pretraining + light RLHF produces tranformatively powerful AIs which obsolete humanity"? If you don't condition on this, it might be an uninteresting claim.

Separately, I'm uncertain whether the current traning procedure of current models like GPT-4 or Claude 3 is still well described as just "light RLHF". I think the training procedure probably involves doing quite a bit of RL with outcomes based feedback on things like coding. (Should this count as "light"? Probably the amount of training compute on this RL is still small?)

I was under the impression that PPO was a recently invented algorithm

Well, if we're going to get historical, PPO is a relatively small variation on Williams's REINFORCE policy gradient model-free RL algorithm from 1992 (or earlier if you count conferences etc), with a bunch of minor DL implementation tweaks that turn out to help a lot. I don't offhand know of any ways in which PPO's tweaks make it meaningfully different from REINFORCE from the perspective of safety, aside from the obvious ones of working better in practice. (Which is the main reason why PPO became OA's workhorse in its model-free RL era to train small CNNs/RNNs, before they moved to model-based RL using Transformer LLMs. Policy gradient methods based on REINFORCE certainly were not novel, but they started scaling earlier.)

So, PPO is recent, yes, but that isn't really important to anything here. TurnedTrout could just as well have used REINFORCE as the example instead.

Did RL researchers in the 1990’s sit down and carefully analyze the inductive biases of PPO on huge 2026-era LLMs, conclude that PPO probably entrains LLMs which make decisions on the basis of their own reinforcement signal, and then decide to say “RL trains agents to maximize reward”? Of course not.

I don't know how you (TurnTrout) can say that. It certainly seems to me that plenty of researchers in 1992 were talking about either model-based RL or using model-free approaches to ground model-based RL - indeed, it's hard to see how anything else could work in connectionism, given that model-free methods are simpler, many animals or organisms do things that can be interpreted as model-free but not model-based (while all creatures who do model-based RL, like humans, clearly also do model-free), and so on. The model-based RL was the 'cherry on the cake', if I may put it that way... These arguments were admittedly handwavy: "if we can't write AGI from scratch, then we can try to learn it from scratch starting with model-free approaches like Hebbian learning, and somewhere between roughly mouse-level and human/AGI, a miracle happens, and we get full model-based reasoning". But hey, can't argue with success there! We have loads of nice results from DeepMind and others with this sort of flavor†.

On the other hand, I'm not able to think of any dissenters which claim that you could have AGI purely using model-free RL with no model-based RL anywhere to be seen? Like, you can imagine it working (eg. in silico environments for everything), but it's not very plausible since it would seem like the computational requirements go astronomical fast.

Back then, they had a richer conception of RL, heavier on the model-based RL half of the field, and one more relevant to the current era, than the impoverished 2017 era of 'let's just PPO/Impala everything we can't MCTS and not talk about how this is supposed to reach AGI, exactly, even if it scales reasonably well'. If you want to critique what AI researchers could imagine back in 1992, you should be reading Schmidhuber, not Bostrom. ("Computing is a pop culture", as Kay put it, and DL, and DRL, are especially pop culture right now. Which is not necessarily a bad thing if you're just trying to get things to work, but if you are going to make historical arguments about what people were or were not thinking in 2014, or 1992, pop culture isn't going to cut the mustard. People back then weren't stupid, and often had very sophisticated well-thought-out ideas & paradigms; they just had a millionth of the compute/data/infrastructure they needed to make any of it work properly...)

If you look at that REINFORCE paper, Williams isn't even all that concerned with direct use of it to train a model to solve RL tasks.* He's more concerned with handling non-differentiable things in general, like stochastic rather than the usual deterministic neurons we use, so you could 'backpropagate through the environment' models like Schmidhuber & Huber 1990, which bootstrap from random initialization using the high-variance REINFORCE-like learning signal to a superior model. (Hm, why, that sounds like the sort of thing you might do if you analyze the inductive biases of model-free approaches which entrain larger systems which have their own internal reinforcement signals which they maximize...) As Schmidhuber has been saying for decades, it's meta-learning all the way up/down. The species-level model-free RL algorithm (evolution) creates model-free within-lifetime learning algorithms (like REINFORCE), which creates model-based within-lifetime learning algorithms (like neural net models) which create learning over families (generalization) for cross-task within-lifetime learning which create learning algorithms (ICL/history-based meta-learners**) for within-episode learning which create...

It's no surprise that the "multiply a set of candidate entities by a fixed small percentage based on each entity's reward" algorithm pops up everywhere from evolution to free markets to DRL to ensemble machine learning over 'experts', because that model-free algorithm is always available as the fallback strategy when you can't do anything smarter (yet). Model-free is just the first step, and in many ways, least interesting & important step. I'm always weirded out to read one of these posts where something like PPO or evolution strategies is treated as the only RL algorithm around and things like expert iteration an annoying nuisance to be relegated to a footnote - 'reward is not the optimization target!* * except when it is in these annoying exceptions like AlphaZero, but fortunately, we can ignore these, because after all, it's not like humans or AGI or superintelligences would ever do crazy stuff like "plan" or "reason" or "search"'.

* He'd've probably been surprised to see people just... using it for stuff like DoTA2 on fully-differentiable BPTT RNNs. I wonder if he's ever done any interviews on DL recently? AFAIK he's still alive.

** Specifically, in the case of Transformers, it seems to be by self-attention doing gradient descent steps on an abstracted version of a problem; gradient descent itself isn't a very smart algorithm, but if the abstract version is a model that encodes the correct sufficient statistics of the broader meta-problem, then it can be very easy to make Bayes-optimal predictions/choices for any specific problem.

† my paper-of-the-day website feature yesterday popped up "Learning few-shot imitation as cultural transmission", Bhoopchand et al 2023 (excerpts) which is a nice example because they show clearly how history+diverse-environments+simple-priors-of-an-evolvable-sort elicit 'inner' model-like imitation learning starting from the initial 'outer' model-free RL algorithm (MPO, an actor-critic).

RLHF as understood currently (with humans directly rating neural network outputs, a la DPO) is very different from RL as understood historically (with the network interacting autonomously in the world and receiving reward from a function of the world).

This is actually pointing to the difference between online and offline learning algorithms, not RL versus non-RL learning algorithms. Online learning has long been known to be less stable than offline learning. That's what's primarily responsible for most "reward hacking"-esque results, such as the CoastRunners degenerate policy. In contrast, offline RL is surprisingly stable and robust to reward misspecification. I think it would have been better if the alignment community had been focused on the stability issues of online learning, rather than the supposed "agentness" of RL.

I was under the impression that PPO was a recently invented algorithm? Wikipedia says it was first published in 2017, which if true would mean that all pre-2017 talk about reinforcement learning was about other algorithms than PPO.

PPO may have been invented in 2017, but there are many prior RL algorithms for which Alex's description of "reward as learning rate multiplier" is true. In fact, PPO is essentially a tweaked version of REINFORCE, for which a bit of searching brings up Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning as the earliest available reference I can find. It was published in 1992, a full 22 years before Bostrom's book. In fact, "reward as learning rate multiplier" is even more clearly true of most of the update algorithms described in that paper. E.g., equation 11:

Here, the reward (adjusted by a "reinforcement baseline" $b_{ij}$) literally just multiplies the learning rate. Beyond PPO and REINFORCE, this "x as learning rate multiplier" pattern is actually extremely common in different RL formulations. From lecture 7 of David Silver's RL course:

To be honest, it was a major blackpill for me to see the rationalist community, whose whole whole founding premise was that they were supposed to be good at making efficient use of the available evidence, so completely missing this very straightforward interpretation of RL (at least, I'd never heard of it from alignment literature until I myself came up with it when I realized that the mechanistic function of per-trajectory rewards in a given batched update was to provide the weights of a linear combination of the trajectory gradients. Update: Gwern's description here is actually somewhat similar). 

implicitly assuming that all future AI architectures will be something like GPT+DPO is counterproductive.

When I bring up the "actual RL algorithms don't seem very dangerous or agenty to me" point, people often respond with "Future algorithms will be different and more dangerous". 

I think this is a bad response for many reasons. In general, it serves as an unlimited excuse to never update on currently available evidence. It also has a bad track record in ML, as the core algorithmic structure of RL algorithms capable of delivering SOTA results has not changed that much in over 3 decades. In fact, just recently Cohere published Back to Basics: Revisiting REINFORCE Style Optimization for Learning from Human Feedback in LLMs, which found that the classic REINFORCE algorithm actually outperforms PPO for LLM RLHF finetuning. Finally, this counterpoint seems irrelevant for Alex's point in this post, which is about historical alignment arguments about historical RL algorithms. He even included disclaimers at the top about this not being an argument for optimism about future AI systems.

↑ comment by LawrenceC (LawChan) · 2024-03-06T01:22:38.498Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I wasn't around in the community in 2010-2015, so I don't know what the state of RL knowledge was at that time. However, I dispute the claim that rationalists "completely miss[ed] this [..] interpretation":

To be honest, it was a major blackpill for me to see the rationalist community, whose whole whole founding premise was that they were supposed to be good at making efficient use of the available evidence, so completely missing this very straightforward interpretation of RL [..] the mechanistic function of per-trajectory rewards in a given batched update was to provide the weights of a linear combination of the trajectory gradients.

Ever since I entered the community, I've definitely heard of people talking about policy gradient as "upweighting trajectories with positive reward/downweighting trajectories with negative reward" since 2016, albeit in person. I remember being shown a picture sometime in 2016/17 that looks something like this when someone (maybe Paul?) was explaining REINFORCE to me: (I couldn't find it, so reconstructing it from memory)

In addition, I would be surprised if any of the CHAI PhD students when I was at CHAI from 2017->2021, many of whom have taken deep RL classes at Berkeley, missed this "upweight trajectories in proportion to their reward" intepretation? Most of us at the time have also implemented various RL algorithms from scratch, and there the "weighting trajectory gradients" perspective pops out immediately. 

As another data point, when I taught MLAB/WMLB in 2022/3, my slides also contained this interpretation of REINFORCE (after deriving it) in so many words:

Insofar as people are making mistakes about reward and RL, it's not due to having never been exposed to this perspective.

---

That being said, I do agree that there's been substantial confusion in this community, mainly of two kinds:

• Confusing the objective function being optimized to train a policy with how the policy is mechanistically implemented: Just because the outer loop is modifying/selecting for a policy to score highly on some objective function, does not necessarily mean that the resulting policy will end up selecting actions based on said objective. 
• Confusing "this policy is optimized for X" with "this policy is optimal for X": this is the actual mistake I think Bostom is making in Alex's example -- it's true that an agent that wireheads achieves higher reward than on the training distribution (and the optimal agent for the reward achieves reward at least as good as wireheading). And I think that Alex and you would also agree with me that it's sometimes valuable to reason about the global optima in policy space. But it's a mistake to identify the outputs of optimization with the optimal solution to an optimization problem, and many people were making this jump without noticing it. 

Again, I contend these confusions were not due to a lack of exposure to the "rewards as weighting trajectories" perspective. Instead, the reasons I remember hearing back in 2017-2018 for why we should jump from "RL is optimizing agents for X" to "RL outputs agents that both optimize X and are optimal for X":

• We'd be really confused if we couldn't reason about "optimal" agents, so we should solve that first. This is the main justification I heard from the MIRI people about why they studied idealized agents. Oftentimes globally optimal solutions are easier to reason about than local optima or saddle points, or are useful for operationalizing concepts. Because a lot of the community was focused on philosophical deconfusion (often w/ minimal knowledge of ML or RL), many people naturally came to jump the gap between "the thing we're studying" and "the thing we care about". 
• Reasoning about optima gives a better picture of powerful, future AGIs. Insofar as we're far from transformative AI, you might expect that current AIs are a poor model for how transformative AI will look. In particular, you might expect that modeling transformative AI as optimal leads to clearer reasoning than analogizing them to current systems. This point has become increasingly tenuous since GPT-2, but 
• Some off-policy RL algorithms are well described as having a "reward" maximizing component: And, these were the approaches that people were using and thinking about at the time. For example, the most hyped results in deep learning in the mid 2010s were probably DQN and AlphaGo/GoZero/Zero. And many people believed that future AIs would be implemented via model-based RL. All of these approaches result in policies that contain an internal component which is searching for actions that maximize some learned objective. Given that ~everyone uses policy gradient variants for RL on SOTA LLMs, this does turn out to be incorrect ex post. But if the most impressive AIs seem to be implemented in ways that correspond to internal reward maximization, it does seem very understandable to think about AGIs as explicit reward optimizers. 
• This is how many RL pioneers reasoned about their algorithms. I agree with Alex that this is probably from the control theory routes, where a PID controller is well modeled as picking trajectories that minimize cost, in a way that early simple RL policies are not well modeled as internally picking trajectories that maximize reward.  

Also, sometimes it is just the words being similar; it can be hard to keep track of the differences between "optimizing for", "optimized for", and "optimal for" in normal conversation. 

I think if you want to prevent the community from repeating these confusions, this looks less like "here's an alternative perspective through which you can view policy gradient" and more "here's why reasoning about AGI as 'optimal' agents is misleading" and "here's why reasoning about your 1 hidden layer neural network policy as if it were optimizing the reward is bad". 

---

An aside:

In general, I think that many ML-knowledgeable people (arguably myself included) correctly notice that the community is making many mistakes in reasoning, that they resolve internally using ML terminology or frames from the ML literature. But without reasoning carefully about the problem, the terminology or frames themselves are insufficient to resolve the confusion. (Notice how many Deep RL people make the same mistake!) And, as Alex and you have argued before, the standard ML frames and terminology introduce their own confusions (e.g. 'attention').

A shallow understanding of "policy gradient is just upweighting trajectories" may in fact lead to making the opposite mistake: assuming that it can never lead to intelligent, optimizer-y behavior. (Again, notice how many ML academics made exactly this mistake) Or, more broadly, thinking about ML algorithms purely from the low-level, mechanistic frame can lead to confusions along the lines of "next token prediction can only lead to statistical parrots without true intelligence". Doubly so if you've only worked with policy gradient or language modeling with tiny models. 

Replies from: TurnTrout

↑ comment by TurnTrout · 2024-07-09T00:59:30.558Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Ever since I entered the community, I've definitely heard of people talking about policy gradient as "upweighting trajectories with positive reward/downweighting trajectories with negative reward" since 2016, albeit in person. I remember being shown a picture sometime in 2016/17 that looks something like this when someone (maybe Paul?) was explaining REINFORCE to me: (I couldn't find it, so reconstructing it from memory)

Knowing how to reason about "upweighting trajectories" when explicitly prompted or in narrow contexts of algorithmic implementation is not sufficient to conclude "people basically knew this perspective" (but it's certainly evidence). See Outside the Laboratory [LW · GW]:

Now suppose we discover that a Ph.D. economist buys a lottery ticket every week.  We have to ask ourselves:  Does this person really understand expected utility, on a gut level?  Or have they just been trained to perform certain algebra tricks?

Knowing "vanilla PG upweights trajectories", and being able to explain the math --- this is not enough to save someone from the rampant reward confusions. Certainly Yoshua Bengio could explain vanilla PG, and yet he goes on about how RL (almost certainly, IIRC) trains reward maximizers. 

I contend these confusions were not due to a lack of exposure to the "rewards as weighting trajectories" perspective.

I personally disagree --- although I think your list of alternative explanations is reasonable. If alignment theorists had been using this (simple and obvious-in-retrospect) "reward chisels circuits into the network" perspective, if they had really been using it and felt it deep within their bones, I think they would not have been particularly tempted by this family of mistakes. 

Replies from: bideup, tailcalled

↑ comment by bideup · 2024-07-09T22:50:21.875Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

What’s the difference between “Alice is falling victim to confusions/reasoning mistakes about X” and “Alice disagrees with me about X”?

I feel like using the former puts undue social pressure on observers to conclude that you’re right, and makes it less likely they correctly adjudicate between the perspectives.

(Perhaps you can empathise with me here, since arguably certain people taking this sort of tone is one of the reasons AI x-risk arguments have not always been vetted as carefully as they should!)

Replies from: andrei-alexandru-parfeni

↑ comment by sunwillrise (andrei-alexandru-parfeni) · 2024-07-09T23:43:03.364Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

What’s the difference between “Alice is falling victim to confusions/reasoning mistakes about X” and “Alice disagrees with me about X”?

I suspect that, for Alex Turner, writing the former instead of the latter is a signal that he thinks he has identified the specific confusion/reasoning mistake his interlocutor is engaged in, likely as a result of having seen closely analogous arguments in the past from other people who turned out (or even admitted) to be confused about these matters after conversations with him.

↑ comment by tailcalled · 2024-07-09T11:45:56.826Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Do you have a reference to the problematic argument that Yoshua Bengio makes?

I was under the impression that PPO was a recently invented algorithm? Wikipedia says it was first published in 2017, which if true would mean that all pre-2017 talk about reinforcement learning was about other algorithms than PPO.

Wikipedia says: 

PPO was developed by John Schulman in 2017,^[1] and had become the default reinforcement learning algorithm at American artificial intelligence company OpenAI.

I certainly do think that debate is motivated by modeling agents as being optimized to increase their reward, and debate is an attempt at writing down a less hackable reward function.  But I also think RL can be sensibly described as trying to increase reward, and generally don't understand the section of the document that says it obviously is not doing that.  And then if the RL algorithm is trying to increase reward, and there is a meta-learning phenomenon that cause agents to learn algorithms, then the agents will be trying to increase reward.

Reading through the section again, it seems like the claim is that my first sentence "debate is motivated by agents being optimized to increase reward" is categorically different than "debate is motivated by agents being themselves motivated to increase reward".  But these two cases seem separated only by a capability gap to me: sufficiently strong agents will be stronger if they record algorithms that adapt to increase reward in different cases.

Some context from Paul Christiano's work on RLHF and a later reflection on it:

Christiano et al.: Deep Reinforcement Learning from Human Preferences

In traditional reinforcement learning, the environment would also supply a reward [...] and the
agent’s goal would be to maximize the discounted sum of rewards. Instead of assuming that the
environment produces a reward signal, we assume that there is a human overseer who can express preferences between trajectory segments. [...] Informally, the goal of the agent is to produce trajectories which are preferred by the human, while making as few queries as possible to the human. [...] After using $r$ to compute rewards, we are left with a traditional reinforcement learning problem

Christiano: Thoughts on the impact of RLHF research [LW · GW]

The simplest plausible strategies for alignment involve humans (maybe with the assistance of AI systems) evaluating a model’s actions based on how much we expect to like their consequences, and then training the models to produce highly-evaluated actions. [...] Simple versions of this approach are expected to run into difficulties, and potentially to be totally unworkable, because:

• Evaluating consequences is hard.
• A treacherous turn can cause trouble too quickly to detect or correct even if you are able to do so, and it’s challenging to evaluate treacherous turn probability at training time.

[...] I don’t think that improving or studying RLHF is automatically “alignment” or necessarily net positive.

Edit: Another relevant section in an interview of Paul Christiano by Dwarkesh Patel:

Paul Christiano - Preventing an AI Takeover

but I don't think AI Safety via Debate presupposes an AI being motivated by the training signal

This seems right to me.

I often imagine debate (and similar techniques) being applied in the (low-stakes/average-case/non-concentrate) control [? · GW] setting. The control setting is the case where you are maximally conservative about the AI's motivations and then try to demonstrate safety via making the incapable of causing catastrophic harm.

If you make pessimistic assumptions about AI motivations like this, then you have to worry about concerns like exploration hacking (or even gradient hacking), but it's still plausible that debate adds considerable value regardless.

We could also less conservatively assume that AIs might be misaligned (including seriously misaligned with problematic long range goals), but won't necessarily prefer colluding with other AI over working with humans (e.g. because humanity offers payment for labor). In this case, techniques like debate seem quite applicable and the situation could be very dangerous in the absence of good enough approaches (at least if AIs are quite superhuman).

More generally, debate could be applicable to any type of misalignment which you think might cause problems over a large number of independently assessible actions.

I don't expect the current paradigm will be insufficient (though it seems totally possible). Off the cuff I expect 75% that something like the current paradigm will be sufficient, with some probability that something else happens first. (Note that "something like the current paradigm" doesn't just involve scaling up networks.)

I strongly disagree with the words “we train our kids”. I think kids learn via within-lifetime RL, where the reward function is installed by evolution inside the kid’s own brain. Parents and friends are characters in the kid’s training environment, but that’s very different from the way that “we train” a neural network, and very different from RLHF.

What does “Parents and friends are characters in the kid’s training environment” mean? Here’s an example. In principle, I could hire a bunch of human Go players on MTurk (for reward-shaping purposes we’ll include some MTurkers who have never played before, all the way to experts), and make a variant of AlphaZero that has no self-play at all, it’s 100% trained on play-against-humans, but is otherwise the same as the traditional AlphaZero. Then we can say “The MTurkers are part of the AlphaZero training environment”, but it would be very misleading to say “the MTurkers trained the AlphaZero model”. The MTurkers are certainly affecting the model, but the model is not imitating the MTurkers, nor is it doing what the MTurkers want, nor is it listening to the MTurkers’ advice. Instead the model is learning to exploit weaknesses in the MTurkers’ play, including via weird out-of-the-box strategies that would have never occurred to the MTurkers themselves.

When you think “parents and friends are characters in the kid’s training environment”, I claim that this MTurk-AlphaGo mental image should be in your head just as much as the mental image of LLM-like self-supervised pretraining.

For more related discussion see my posts “Thoughts on “AI is easy to control” by Pope & Belrose” [LW · GW] sections 3 & 4, and Heritability, Behaviorism, and Within-Lifetime RL [LW · GW].

In any case, I'd be interested in an explanation of what the differences are and why one type of training produces schemers and the other is very unlikely to.

Thinking over this question myself, I think I've found a reasonable answer. Still interested in your thoughts but I'll write down mine:

It seems like evolution "wanted" us to be (in part) reward-correlate maximizers (i.e., being a reward-correlate maximizer was adaptive in our ancestral environment), and "implemented" this by having our brains internally do "heavy RL" throughout our life. So we become reward-correlate maximizing agents early in life, and then when our parents do something like RLHF on top of that, we become schemers pretty easily.

So the important difference is that with "pretraining + light RLHF" there's no "heavy RL" step.

See footnote 5 [LW · GW] for a nearby argument which I think is valid:

The strongest argument for reward-maximization which I'm aware of is: Human brains do RL and often care about some kind of tight reward-correlate, to some degree. Humans are like deep learning systems in some ways, and so that's evidence that "learning setups which work in reality" can come to care about their own training signals.

If many people have presented you with an argument for something, and upon analyzing it you found those arguments to be invalid, you can form a prior that arguments for that thing tend to be invalid, and therefore expect to be able to rationally dismantle any particular argument.

Now the danger is that this makes it tempting to assume that the position that is argued for is wrong. That's not necessarily the case because very few arguments have predictive power and survive scrutiny [LW(p) · GW(p)]. It is easy to say where someone's argument is wrong, and the real responsibility for figuring out what is correct instead has to be picked up by oneself [LW · GW]. One should have a general prior that arguments are invalid, and therefore learning that they are wrong in some specific area should not by-default be a non-negligible update against that area.

The post is live here [LW · GW].

You misunderstand what "deceptive alignment" refers to. This is a very common misunderstanding: I've seen several other people make the same mistake, and I have also been confused about it in the past. Here are some writings that clarify this:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dEER2W3goTsopt48i/olli-jaerviniemi-s-shortform?commentId=zWyjJ8PhfLmB4ajr5 [LW(p) · GW(p)]

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/a392MCzsGXAZP5KaS/deceptive-ai-deceptively-aligned-ai [LW · GW]

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/a392MCzsGXAZP5KaS/deceptive-ai-deceptively-aligned-ai?commentId=ij9wghDCxjXpad8Rf [LW(p) · GW(p)]

(The terminology here is tricky. "Deceptive alignment" is not simply "a model deceives about whether it's aligned", but rather a technical term referring to a very particular threat model. Similarly, "scheming" is not just a general term referring to models making malicious plans, but again is a technical term pointing to a very particular threat model.)

I think you tried to embed images hosted on some Google product, which our editor should've tried to re-upload to our own image host if you pasted them in as images but might not have if you inserted the images by URL.  Hotlinking to images on Google domains often fails, unfortunately.

The image isn't showing, at least on my browser (I suspect you tried to embed it into your comment). The link works, though.

It's not two things, risk versus safety, it's three things: existential risk versus sub-existential risk versus no risk. Sub existential risk is the most likely on the priors.