AF - Why I hate the "accident vs. misuse" AI x-risk dichotomy (quick thoughts on "structural risk") by David Scott Krueger

<a href="https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/6bpW2kyeKaBtuJuEk/why-i-hate-the-accident-vs-misuse-ai-x-risk-dichotomy-quick">Link to original article</a><br/><br/>Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Why I hate the "accident vs. misuse" AI x-risk dichotomy (quick thoughts on "structural risk"), published by David Scott Krueger on January 30, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. I think the large majority of AI x-risk is "structural". Like climate change. Here's a good primer on structural risk (note that structural risk is not a synonym for "not caused by out-of-control AI"): I am shocked and amazed and dismayed that more people do not seem to view it this way, even among the AI x-safety community. Heck, even Eliezer's stories of doom are steeped in structural risk (race dynamics, teams rationalizing cutting corners on safety when they should know better, etc.) I expect irresponsible, reckless, negligent deployment of AI systems without proper accounting of externalities. I consider this the default for any technology with potential for significant externalities, absent regulation.When something bad happens in such a context, calling it "accident risk" absolves those researching, developing, and/or deploying the technology of responsibility. They should have known better. Some of them almost certainly did. Rationalization, oversight, and misaligned incentives were almost certainly at play. Failing to predict the particular failure mode encountered is no excuse. Having "good intentions" is no excuse.So... it must be misuse then, right? Well, no. Calling it "misuse" suggests that those researching, developing, and/or deploying the technology set out with nefarious purposes and the technology achieved precisely what they intended. But ~nobody wants to destroy the world. It's just that most people are somewhat selfish and so are willing to trade some x-risk for a large personal benefit.In summary, saying "accident" makes it sounds like an unpredictable effect, instead of painfully obviously risk that was not taken seriously enough. Saying "misuse" makes it sounds like some supervillian or extremist deliberately destroying the world. While some risks may have something more of a flavor or accident or misuse depending on how obvious the risk was, neither of these pictures gives a remotely accurate picture of the nature of the problem. I think this makes it a harmful meme, and ask that others stop making this distinction (without appropriate caveats), and join me in pointing out how it contributes to a confused and misleading discourse when others do. EtA: Many people have responded that "accident" does not connote "unforseen" or "not negligent", etc., and instead it should simply be interpreted as something like "a result that was not deliberately selected for". While it can be used this way, I basically disagree that this is how it is usually used, see below:EtA: as an additional clarification: my main objection is not to the use of "accident" and "misuse", but rather to their use as a dichotomy. Every use of these terms I can recall seeing in writing (other than those that mention structural risk) supports this dichotomy, and it is often made explicitly. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

First published

01/30/2023

Genres:

education

Listen to this episode

0:00 / 0:00

Summary

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Why I hate the "accident vs. misuse" AI x-risk dichotomy (quick thoughts on "structural risk"), published by David Scott Krueger on January 30, 2023 on The AI Alignment Forum. I think the large majority of AI x-risk is "structural". Like climate change. Here's a good primer on structural risk (note that structural risk is not a synonym for "not caused by out-of-control AI"): I am shocked and amazed and dismayed that more people do not seem to view it this way, even among the AI x-safety community. Heck, even Eliezer's stories of doom are steeped in structural risk (race dynamics, teams rationalizing cutting corners on safety when they should know better, etc.) I expect irresponsible, reckless, negligent deployment of AI systems without proper accounting of externalities. I consider this the default for any technology with potential for significant externalities, absent regulation.When something bad happens in such a context, calling it "accident risk" absolves those researching, developing, and/or deploying the technology of responsibility. They should have known better. Some of them almost certainly did. Rationalization, oversight, and misaligned incentives were almost certainly at play. Failing to predict the particular failure mode encountered is no excuse. Having "good intentions" is no excuse.So... it must be misuse then, right? Well, no. Calling it "misuse" suggests that those researching, developing, and/or deploying the technology set out with nefarious purposes and the technology achieved precisely what they intended. But ~nobody wants to destroy the world. It's just that most people are somewhat selfish and so are willing to trade some x-risk for a large personal benefit.In summary, saying "accident" makes it sounds like an unpredictable effect, instead of painfully obviously risk that was not taken seriously enough. Saying "misuse" makes it sounds like some supervillian or extremist deliberately destroying the world. While some risks may have something more of a flavor or accident or misuse depending on how obvious the risk was, neither of these pictures gives a remotely accurate picture of the nature of the problem. I think this makes it a harmful meme, and ask that others stop making this distinction (without appropriate caveats), and join me in pointing out how it contributes to a confused and misleading discourse when others do. EtA: Many people have responded that "accident" does not connote "unforseen" or "not negligent", etc., and instead it should simply be interpreted as something like "a result that was not deliberately selected for". While it can be used this way, I basically disagree that this is how it is usually used, see below:EtA: as an additional clarification: my main objection is not to the use of "accident" and "misuse", but rather to their use as a dichotomy. Every use of these terms I can recall seeing in writing (other than those that mention structural risk) supports this dichotomy, and it is often made explicitly. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Duration

3 hours

Parent Podcast

The Nonlinear Library: Alignment Forum Daily

View Podcast

Share this episode

Similar Episodes

AMA: Paul Christiano, alignment researcher by Paul Christiano

Release Date: 12/06/2021

Description: Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: AMA: Paul Christiano, alignment researcher, published by Paul Christiano on the AI Alignment Forum. I'll be running an Ask Me Anything on this post from Friday (April 30) to Saturday (May 1). If you want to ask something just post a top-level comment; I'll spend at least a day answering questions. You can find some background about me here. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Explicit: No

Details

What is the alternative to intent alignment called? Q by Richard Ngo

Release Date: 11/17/2021

Description: Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: What is the alternative to intent alignment called? Q, published by Richard Ngo on the AI Alignment Forum. Paul defines intent alignment of an AI A to a human H as the criterion that A is trying to do what H wants it to do. What term do people use for the definition of alignment in which A is trying to achieve H's goals (whether or not H intends for A to achieve H's goals)? Secondly, this seems to basically map on to the distinction between an aligned genie and an aligned sovereign. Is this a fair characterisation? (Intent alignment definition from) Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Explicit: No

Details

AI alignment landscape by Paul Christiano

Release Date: 11/19/2021

Description: Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: AI alignment landscape, published byPaul Christiano on the AI Alignment Forum. Here (link) is a talk I gave at EA Global 2019, where I describe how intent alignment fits into the broader landscape of “making AI go well,” and how my work fits into intent alignment. This is particularly helpful if you want to understand what I’m doing, but may also be useful more broadly. I often find myself wishing people were clearer about some of these distinctions. Here is the main overview slide from the talk: The highlighted boxes are where I spend most of my time. Here are the full slides from the talk. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Explicit: No

Details

Would an option to publish to AF users only be a useful feature?Q by Richard Ngo

Release Date: 11/17/2021

Description: Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Would an option to publish to AF users only be a useful feature?Q , published by Richard Ngo on the AI Alignment Forum. Right now there are quite a few private safety docs floating around. There's evidently demand for a privacy setting lower than "only people I personally approve", but higher than "anyone on the internet gets to see it". But this means that safety researchers might not see relevant arguments and information. And as the field grows, passing on access to such documents on a personal basis will become even less efficient. My guess is that in most cases, the authors of these documents don't have a problem with other safety researchers seeing them, as long as everyone agrees not to distribute them more widely. One solution could be to have a checkbox for new posts which makes them only visible to verified Alignment Forum users. Would people use this? Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Explicit: No

Details