As artificial intelligence improves, machines will soon be equipped
with intellectual and practical capabilities that surpass the smartest
humans. But not only will machines be more capable than people, they
will also be able to make themselves better. That is, these machines
will understand their own design and how to improve it – or they could
create entirely new machines that are even more capable.
The human creators of AIs must be able to trust these machines to
remain safe and beneficial even as they self-improve and adapt to the
real world.
Recursive Self-Improvement
This idea of an autonomous agent making increasingly better modifications to its own code is called recursive self-improvement. Through recursive self-improvement, a machine can adapt to new circumstances and learn how to deal with new situations.
To a certain extent, the human brain does this as well. As a person
develops and repeats new habits, connections in their brains can change.
The connections grow stronger and more effective over time, making the
new, desired action easier to perform (e.g. changing one’s diet or
learning a new language). In machines though, this ability to
self-improve is much more drastic.
An AI agent can process information much faster than a human, and if
it does not properly understand how its actions impact people, then its
self-modifications could quickly fall out of line with human values.
For Bas Steunebrink, a researcher at the Swiss AI lab IDSIA, solving
this problem is a crucial step toward achieving safe and beneficial AI.
Building AI in a Complex World
Because the world is so complex, many researchers begin AI projects
by developing AI in carefully controlled environments. Then they create
mathematical proofs that can assure them that the AI will achieve
success in this specified space.
But Steunebrink worries that this approach puts too much
responsibility on the designers and too much faith in the proof,
especially when dealing with machines that can learn through recursive
self-improvement. He explains, “We cannot accurately describe the
environment in all its complexity; we cannot foresee what environments
the agent will find itself in in the future; and an agent will not have
enough resources (energy, time, inputs) to do the optimal thing.”
If the machine encounters an unforeseen circumstance, then that proof
the designer relied on in the controlled environment may not apply.
Says Steunebrink, “We have no assurance about the safe behavior of the
[AI].”
Experience-based Artificial Intelligence
Instead, Steunebrink uses an approach called EXPAI (experience-based
artificial intelligence). EXPAI are “self-improving systems that make
tentative, additive, reversible, very fine-grained modifications,
without prior self-reasoning; instead, self-modifications are tested
over time against experiential evidences and slowly phased in when
vindicated, or dismissed when falsified.”
Instead of trusting only a mathematical proof, researchers can ensure
that the AI develops safe and benevolent behaviors by teaching and
testing the machine in complex, unforeseen environments that challenge
its function and goals.
With EXPAI, AI machines will learn from interactive experience, and
therefore monitoring their growth period is crucial. As Steunebrink
posits, the focus shifts from asking, “What is the behavior of an agent
that is very intelligent and capable of self-modification, and how do we
control it?” to asking, “How do we grow an agent from baby beginnings
such that it gains both robust understanding and proper values?”
Consider how children grow and learn to navigate the world
independently. If provided with a stable and healthy childhood, children
learn to adopt values and understand their relation to the external
world through trial and error, and by examples. Childhood is a time of
growth and learning, of making mistakes, of building on success – all to
help prepare the child to grow into a competent adult who can navigate
unforeseen circumstances.
Steunebrink believes that researchers can ensure safe AI through a similar, gradual process of experience-based learning. In an architectural blueprint
developed by Steunebrink and his colleagues, the AI is constructed
“starting from only a small amount of designer-specific code – a seed.”
Like a child, the beginnings of the machine will be less competent and
less intelligent, but it will self-improve over time, as it learns from
teachers and real-world experience.
As Steunebrink’s approach focuses on the growth period of an
autonomous agent, the teachers, not the programmers, are most
responsible for creating a robust and benevolent AI. Meanwhile, the
developmental stage gives researchers time to observe and correct an
AI’s behavior in a controlled setting where the stakes are still low.
The Future of EXPAI
Steunebrink and his colleagues are currently creating what he
describes as a “pedagogy to determine what kind of things to teach to
agents and in what order, how to test what the agents understand from
being taught, and, depending on the results of such tests, decide
whether we can proceed to the next steps of teaching or whether we
should reteach the agent or go back to the drawing board.”
A major issue Steunebrink faces is that his method of
experience-based learning diverges from the most popular methods for
improving AI. Instead of doing the intellectual work of crafting a
proof-backed optimal learning algorithm on a computer, EXPAI requires
extensive in-person work with the machine to teach it like a child.
Creating safe artificial intelligence might prove to be more a
process of teaching and growth rather than a function of creating the
perfect mathematical proof. While such a shift in responsibility may be
more time-consuming, it could also help establish a far more
comprehensive understanding of an AI before it is released into the real
world.
Steunebrink explains, “A lot of work remains to move beyond the agent
implementation level, towards developing the teaching and testing
methodologies that enable us to grow an agent’s understanding of ethical
values, and to ensure that the agent is compelled to protect and adhere
to them.”
The process is daunting, he admits, “but it is not as daunting as the consequences of getting AI safety wrong.”
