Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userAvoiding Negative Side Effects due to Incomplete Knowledge of AI Systems
79
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Sandhya Saisubramanian
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Autonomous agents acting in the real-world often operate based on models that ignore certain aspects of the environment. The incompleteness of any given model---handcrafted or machine acquired---is inevitable due to practical limitations of any modeling technique for complex real-world settings. Due to the limited fidelity of its model, an agents actions may have unexpected, undesirable consequences during execution. Learning to recognize and avoid such negative side effects of the agents actions is critical to improving the safety and reliability of autonomous systems. This emerging research topic is attracting increased attention due to the increased deployment of AI systems and their broad societal impacts. This article provides a comprehensive overview of different forms of negative side effects and the recent research efforts to address them. We identify key characteristics of negative side effects, highlight the challenges in avoiding negative side effects, and discuss recently developed approaches, contrasting their benefits and limitations. We conclude with a discussion of open questions and suggestions for future research directions.
rate research
Read More
AI researchers employ not only the scientific method, but also methodology from mathematics and engineering. However, the use of the scientific method - specifically hypothesis testing - in AI is typically conducted in service of engineering objectives. Growing interest in topics such as fairness and algorithmic bias show that engineering-focused questions only comprise a subset of the important questions about AI systems. This results in the AI Knowledge Gap: the number of unique AI systems grows faster than the number of studies that characterize these systems behavior. To close this gap, we argue that the study of AI could benefit from the greater inclusion of researchers who are well positioned to formulate and test hypotheses about the behavior of AI systems. We examine the barriers preventing social and behavioral scientists from conducting such studies. Our diagnosis suggests that accelerating the scientific study of AI systems requires new incentives for academia and industry, mediated by new tools and institutions. To address these needs, we propose a two-sided marketplace called TuringBox. On one side, AI contributors upload existing and novel algorithms to be studied scientifically by others. On the other side, AI examiners develop and post machine intelligence tasks designed to evaluate and characterize algorithmic behavior. We discuss this markets potential to democratize the scientific study of AI behavior, and thus narrow the AI Knowledge Gap.
Designing reward functions is difficult: the designer has to specify what to do (what it means to complete the task) as well as what not to do (side effects that should be avoided while completing the task). To alleviate the burden on the reward designer, we propose an algorithm to automatically generate an auxiliary reward function that penalizes side effects. This auxiliary objective rewards the ability to complete possible future tasks, which decreases if the agent causes side effects during the current task. The future task reward can also give the agent an incentive to interfere with events in the environment that make future tasks less achievable, such as irreversible actions by other agents. To avoid this interference incentive, we introduce a baseline policy that represents a default course of action (such as doing nothing), and use it to filter out future tasks that are not achievable by default. We formally define interference incentives and show that the future task approach with a baseline policy avoids these incentives in the deterministic case. Using gridworld environments that test for side effects and interference, we show that our method avoids interference and is more effective for avoiding side effects than the common approach of penalizing irreversible actions.
Designing reward functions for reinforcement learning is difficult: besides specifying which behavior is rewarded for a task, the reward also has to discourage undesired outcomes. Misspecified reward functions can lead to unintended negative side effects, and overall unsafe behavior. To overcome this problem, recent work proposed to augment the specified reward function with an impact regularizer that discourages behavior that has a big impact on the environment. Although initial results with impact regularizers seem promising in mitigating some types of side effects, important challenges remain. In this paper, we examine the main current challenges of impact regularizers and relate them to fundamental design decisions. We discuss in detail which challenges recent approaches address and which remain unsolved. Finally, we explore promising directions to overcome the unsolved challenges in preventing negative side effects with impact regularizers.
Several pieces of work have uncovered performance disparities by conducting disaggregated evaluations of AI systems. We build on these efforts by focusing on the choices that must be made when designing a disaggregated evaluation, as well as some of the key considerations that underlie these design choices and the tradeoffs between these considerations. We argue that a deeper understanding of the choices, considerations, and tradeoffs involved in designing disaggregated evaluations will better enable researchers, practitioners, and the public to understand the ways in which AI systems may be underperforming for particular groups of people.
In a world increasingly dominated by AI applications, an understudied aspect is the carbon and social footprint of these power-hungry algorithms that require copious computation and a trove of data for training and prediction. While profitable in the short-term, these practices are unsustainable and socially extractive from both a data-use and energy-use perspective. This work proposes an ESG-inspired framework combining socio-technical measures to build eco-socially responsible AI systems. The framework has four pillars: compute-efficient machine learning, federated learning, data sovereignty, and a LEEDesque certificate. Compute-efficient machine learning is the use of compressed network architectures that show marginal decreases in accuracy. Federated learning augments the first pillars impact through the use of techniques that distribute computational loads across idle capacity on devices. This is paired with the third pillar of data sovereignty to ensure the privacy of user data via techniques like use-based privacy and differential privacy. The final pillar ties all these factors together and certifies products and services in a standardized manner on their environmental and social impacts, allowing consumers to align their purchase with their values.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
