Fundamental Impossibility Results in AI Safety: Trading Off between Desiderata
Ida Mattsson, Ratip Emin Berker, Emanuel Tewolde, Ioannis Anagnostides, Kiriaki Fragkia, Xinyu Liu, Alexander Heckett, Jiayuan Liu, Eden Hartman, Vojtěch Kovařík, Sven Neth, Maria-Florina Balcan, Tuomas Sandholm, Vincent Conitzer
Abstract
Is there a fundamental tradeoff between desiderata for safe AI systems, such as harmlessness and helpfulness? We answer by formalizing the interaction between AI systems and users as a game with three players: a defender and an attacker that are computationally or informationally bounded, and an AI that provides public advice and is less constrained. Our main result shows that there is a fundamental tradeoff in providing advice that helps the defender while advice remains public. We also consider whether the information that the AI shares can be manipulated to benefit only the defender and conclude with a discussion of how we can use these results in designing safer AI systems.
Create a lesson
Related papers
Exact Envy-Free Cake Cutting with Polynomial Expected Queries
Simon Mackenzie, Mashbat Suzuki
Subjective Valuations Make It Hard to be Fair: The Complexity of Resource Allocation to Groups of Agents
Argyrios Deligkas, Eduard Eiben, Robert Ganian et al.
Best-of-Both Worlds Proportionality in Structured Committee Elections
Dimitris Avramidis, Mark de Berg, Ulrike Schmidt-Kraepelin
Fixed Sets and the Hardness of Computing Correlated Equilibria
Ioannis Anagnostides, Constantinos Daskalakis, Gabriele Farina et al.
Extending Mechanisms
Sergiu Hart, Noam Nisan
Simple Strategy-Iteration with Dantzig's Rule is not Strongly Polynomial on Turn-Based Deterministic Games
Sanyou Mei