Crossposted from the AI Alignment Forum. May contain more technical jargon than usual.

What the heck is up with “corrigibility”? For most of my career, I had a sense that it was a grab-bag of properties that seemed nice in theory but hard to get in practice, perhaps due to being incompatible with agency.

Then, last year, I spent some time revisiting my perspective, and I concluded that I had been deeply confused by what corrigibility even was. I now think that corrigibility is a single, intuitive property, which people can learn to emulate without too much work and which is deeply compatible with agency. Furthermore, I expect that even with prosaic training methods, there's some chance of winding up with an AI agent that's inclined to become more corrigible over time, rather than less (as long as the people who built it understand corrigibility and want that agent [...]

---

Outline:

(07:30) Overview

(07:33) 1. The CAST Strategy

(08:15) 2. Corrigibility Intuition (Coming Saturday)

(08:49) 3a. Towards Formal Corrigibility (Coming Sunday)

(09:27) 3. Formal (Faux) Corrigibility ← the mathy one (Also Sunday)

(10:12) 4. Existing Writing on Corrigibility (Coming Monday)

(10:33) 5. Open Corrigibility Questions (Also Monday)

(10:58) Bibliography and Miscellany

---

First published:
June 7th, 2024

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NQK8KHSrZRF5erTba/0-cast-corrigibility-as-singular-target-1

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

“0. CAST: Corrigibility as Singular Target” by Max Harms

LessWrong (30+ Karma)