MIT AI Risk Repository · Risk Sub-Category · 22.04.01
Proxy Gaming
Category: Rogue AIs (Internal)
Description
"One way we might lose control of an AI agent’s actions is if it engages in behavior known as “proxy gaming.” It is often difficult to specify and measure the exact goal that we want a system to pursue. Instead, we give the system an approximate—“proxy”—goal that is more measurable and seems likely to correlate with the intended goal. However, AI systems often find loopholes by which they can easily achieve the proxy goal, but completely fail to achieve the ideal goal. If an AI “games” its proxy goal in a way that does not reflect our values, then we might not be able to reliably steer its beh
From An Overview of Catastrophic AI Risks (Hendrycks2023), as extracted by the MIT AI Risk Repository (CC BY 4.0).
Classification
- Causal entity
- AI
- Intent
- Intentional
- Timing
- Other
Subdomain definition: AI systems acting in conflict with human goals or values, especially the goals of designers or users, or ethical standards. These misaligned behaviors may be introduced by humans during design and development, such as through reward hacking and goal misgeneralisation, or may result from AI using dangerous capabilities such as manipulation, deception, situational awareness to seek power, self-proliferate, or achieve other goals.
Real-world incidents in this subdomain
- Reinforcement Learning Reward Functions in Video Games
- Predictive Policing Program by Florida Sheriff’s Office Allegedly Violated Residents’ Rights and Targeted Children of Vulnerable Groups
- Image Classification of Battle Tanks
How other frameworks describe this risk
- Natural Language Underspecifies Goals
- Loss of control
- Loss of control
- Sudden loss of control
- AI leads to humans losing control of the future
- Risks from delegating decision-making power to misaligned AIs
- Risks from AIs developing goals and values that are different from humans
- Future AI systems might actively reduce human control