AI That Doesn't Try Too Hard - Maximizers and Satisficers

Powerful AI systems can be dangerous in part because they pursue their goals as strongly as they can. Perhaps it would be safer to have systems that don't aim for perfection, and stop at 'good enough'. How could we build something like that?

Computerphile Videos:

With thanks to my excellent Patreon supporters:

Scott Worley
Jordan Medina
Simon Strandgaard
JJ Hepboin
Lupuleasa Ionuț
Pedro A Ortega
Said Polat
Chris Canal
Nicholas Kees Dupuis
Jake Ehrlich
Mark Hechim
Kellen lask
Francisco Tolmasky
Michael Andregg
Alexandru Dobre
David Reid
Robert Daniel Pickard
Peter Rolf
Chad Jones
Truthdoc
James
Richárd Nagyfi
Jason Hise
Phil Moyer
Shevis Johnson
Alec Johnson
Clemens Arbesser
Ludwig Schubert
Bryce Daifuku
Allen Faure
Eric James
Jonatan R
Ingvi Gautsson
Michael Greve
Julius Brash
Tom O'Connor
Erik de Bruijn
Robin Green
Laura Olds
Jon Halliday
Paul Hobbs
Jeroen De Dauw
Tim Neilson
Eric Scammell
Igor Keller
Ben Glanton
Robert Sokolowski
anul kumar sinha
Jérôme Frossard
Sean Gibat
Cooper Lawton
Tyler Herrmann
Tomas Sayder
Ian Munro
Jérôme Beaulieu
Taras Bobrovytsky
Anne Buit
Tom Murphy
Vaskó Richárd
Sebastian Birjoveanu
Gladamas
Sylvain Chevalier
DGJono
Dmitri Afanasjev
Brian Sandberg
Marcel Ward
Andrew Weir
Ben Archer
Scott McCarthy
Kabs
Miłosz Wierzbicki
Tendayi Mawushe
Jannik Olbrich
Anne Kohlbrenner
Jussi Männistö
Mr Fantastic
Wr4thon
Martin Ottosen
Archy de Berker
Marc Pauly
Joshua Pratt
Andy Kobre
Brian Gillespie
Martin Wind
Peggy Youell
Poker Chen
Kees
Darko Sperac
Truls
Paul Moffat
Anders Öhrt
Marco Tiraboschi
Michael Kuhinica
Fraser Cain
Robin Scharf
Oren Milman
John Rees
Seth Brothwell
Clark Mitchell
Kasper Schnack
Michael Hunter
Klemen Slavic
Patrick Henderson
Long Nguyen
Melisa Kostrzewski
Hendrik
Daniel Munter
Graham Henry
Volotat
Duncan Orr
Marin Aldimirov
Bryan Egan
James Fowkes
Frame Problems
Alan Bandurka
Benjamin Hull
Tatiana Ponomareva
Aleksi Maunu
Michael Bates
Simon Pilkington
Dion Gerald Bridger
Steven Cope
Marcos Alfredo Núñez
Petr Smital
Daniel Kokotajlo
Fionn
Yuchong Li
Nathan Fish
Diagon
Parker Lund
Russell schoen
Andreas Blomqvist
Bertalan Bodor
David Morgan
Ben Schultz
Zannheim
Daniel Eickhardt
lyon549
HD

[mihalisboulasikis]

"Intuitively the issue is that utility maximizers have precisely zero chill". Best intuitive explanation on the subject ever.

[armorsmith]

“So satisficers will want to become maximizers” and this is one reason that studying AI safety is interesting—it prompts observations that also apply to organizations made of humans.

[tatianatub]

"utility maximizers have precisely zero chill" needs to be on a tshirt

[miapuffia]

Satisficer AI may want to use a maximizer AI, as that will lead to a high probably of success, even without knowing how the maximizer works. That made me think that humans are satisficers and we're using AI as maximizers, in a similar way

[unvergebeneid]

"Any world where humans are alive and happy is a world that could have more stamps in it." 😂 😂 😂 I need that on a t-shirt!

[theshaggiest]

"Not trying too hard"? Move over, dude, I happen to be an expert in this field.
Just program the AI to take a break after every five minutes of work to watch YouTube videos for an hour and a half. Problem solved.

[superjugy]

hahahaha, flower smelling champion. I had already seen that comic but its so much more funny in this context XD thanks for the great videos

[NancyLebovitz]

For anyone who missed it, the closing music is "Dayenu", a Hebrew song with a refrain of "it would have been enough". It's a nice choice.

[SapkaliAkif]

2:57 "You can't perfectly simulate a universe from the inside." is a good motto to have if don't want to overthink stuff. Science is cool

[Verrisin]

I just realized... If you make it (say AI-1) to want to chill (not work too hard to achieve it)... it will just make something else (another AI) to do the work for it, if it's easier than solving it on its own... right? Then, what it will create is probably a maximizer (because that is the easiest; and it is lazy, and just wants to chill)
Then I *We, humans, are the AI-1* ... O.O
- We are doomed...

[Cobrax]

Have you guys played the game Uniserval Paperclips? It's free, and basically you play as the Stamp Collector AI. You're maximizing the number of clips. I kinda loved it to be honest.

[MrBrew]

Hello Robert!
Let me start by saying, your channel is probably my favorite channel on YouTube. I'm a compsci student, AI enthusiast, and your insight and explanations in the field of AI are really entertaining and educational. Many other channels try to present the information in the condensed and easy to digest way, which is fine, but I would really like to see more advanced content on YT. Maybe you have a recommendation for me?
I was wondering, you don't upload videos very frequently. I really appreciate your work and would be very happy to see more content from you, but if it is because you are busy or want to provide quality over quantity I'm all for it too!

[AsteriosChardalias]

The content and the comments on this channel always gets me reflecting on the 'human condition' and how much trying to build AIs teaches us about understanding ourselves.

[Elyandarin]

My impression about AI is that you can only ever maximize for one utility function, but you can satisfice as much as you want, as long as you are OK with the failure state of [doing nothing].

So, you satisfice for "at least 100 stamps expected in optimal case", satisfice for "at least 95% chance of optimal case", satisfice further for "zero human casualties" and "with 99.9% certainty", let the planning engine spin for an hour or until 100 plans have passed muster, then maximize acceptable plans according to something like "simplicity of plan", "positive-sum outcomes" or "similarity to recorded human interactions".

...Well, there's probably a lot that could go wrong with that, even so, and I'd probably add some more complex safety measures after considering everything that could go wrong for a couple of months, but that's what I'd start with, were I to program AI.

[bejoscha]

This is one of the better videos (of all your good ones). I like it very much. Speed is well adjusted (a tiny bit slower than usual), explanations are concise and good. Just a good watch. I'm definitely looking out for the next... Thanks for breaking down such complex topics into digestible chunks for (near)-leasure watching. I feel this is the kind of "solid" common-sense understanding of AI future generations will need to have, even if being an expert in the field is out of reach. More complicated life? Yes, but that's just as it is. People 500 years ago could do with a lot less "every-day complexity" than today as well...

[NightmareCrab]

"Can you relax mister maniacal, soulless, non-living, breathless, pulseless, non-human all-seeing AI, sir? Just chill, don't be such a robot."

[herp_derpingson]

Historically speaking, several humans have brought apocalypses while they were trying to maximize something.

[alextilson]

If self modification strategies occurred, any satisficer or maximiser will just set their utility function to always return a max float reward.

In other words, to analogise with human dopamine based learning: self modification and drug addiction will be any reinforcement learner's ultimate downfall.

[qzbnyv]

Reminds me a lot of asymmetric call option payoffs from finance. And a lot of near-bankrutpcy decision making for corporations.

[pafnutiytheartist]

What if we do a utility function in a following way:
F(s) = s, if s <= 100
F(s) = 100, if 100 < s < 120
F(s) = 220-s, if s >= 100
If the number of stamps is between 100 stamps and 120 stamps the reward is 100 exactly.
If it gets less than 100 the reward is the number of stamps.
If it gets more than 120 the reward is 220-number of stamps (negative if more than 220 stamps are collected)
You can also add a small negative term for environment disruption as you discussed in side effects video.
This way the agent wants to make sure it collects around 100-120 stamps but is punished for the possibility of collecting too much (or turning the world into a stamp counting device if you include the negative term for turning the world into different things).
It's not a 100 percent way to get the AI to finally chill out but it's very likely to not destroy the world.