MIT AI Risk Repository · Risk Sub-Category · 24.09.02
Commitment
Category: Cooperation
Description
"The landscape of advanced assistant technologies will most likely be heterogeneous, involving multiple service providers and multiple assistant variants over geographies and time. This heterogeneity provides an opportunity for an ‘arms race’ in terms of the commitments that AI assistants make and are able to execute on. Versions of AI assistants that are better able to credibly commit to a course of action in interaction with other advanced assistants (and humans) are more likely to get their own way and achieve a good outcome for their human principal, but this is potentially at the expense
From The Ethics of Advanced AI Assistants (Gabriel2024), as extracted by the MIT AI Risk Repository (CC BY 4.0).
Classification
- Causal entity
- Human
- 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
Other entries from Gabriel2024
- Capability failures
- Lack of capability for task
- Difficult to develop metrics for evaluating benefits or harms caused by AI assistants
- Safe exploration problem with widely deployed AI assistants
- Goal-related failures
- Misaligned consequentialist reasoning
- Specification gaming
- Goal misgeneralisation
- Deceptive alignment
- Malicious Uses
- Offensive Cyber Operations (General)
- AI-Powered Spear-Phishing at Scale