control incentive
Path-Specific Objectives for Safer Agent Incentives
Farquhar, Sebastian, Carey, Ryan, Everitt, Tom
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.
The Incentives that Shape Behaviour
Carey, Ryan, Langlois, Eric, Everitt, Tom, Legg, Shane
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 formalize 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.