Goal of This Post

I have never seen anyone give a satisfying intuitive explanation of what corrigibility (in roughly Eliezer's sense of the word) is. There's lists of desiderata, but they sound like scattered wishlists which don’t obviously point to a unified underlying concept at all. There's also Eliezer's extremely meta pointer:

We can imagine, e.g., the AI imagining itself building a sub-AI while being prone to various sorts of errors, asking how it (the AI) would want the sub-AI to behave in those cases, and learning heuristics that would generalize well to how we would want the AI to behave if it suddenly gained a lot of capability or was considering deceiving its programmers and so on.

… and that's basically it.[1]

In this post, we’re going to explain a reasonably-unified concept which seems like a decent match to “corrigibility” in Eliezer's sense.

Tools

Starting point: we think [...]

---

Outline:

(00:05) Goal of This Post

(01:03) Tools

(02:40) Respecting Modularity

(04:49) Visibility and Correctability

(06:00) Let's Go Through A List Of Desiderata

(11:53) What Would It Look Like To Use A Powerful Corrigible AGI?

(14:11) From Cognition to Real Patterns?

The original text contained 6 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.

---

First published:
June 28th, 2024

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7LaDvWtymFWtidGxe/corrigibility-tool-ness

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

“Corrigibility = Tool-ness?” by johnswentworth, David Lorell

LessWrong (30+ Karma)