Towards Measuring Goal-Directedness in AI Systems

Recent advances in deep learning have brought attention to the possibility of creating advanced, general AI systems that outperform humans across many tasks. However, if these systems pursue unintended goals, there could be catastrophic consequences. A key prerequisite for AI systems pursuing unintended goals is whether they will behave in a coherent and goal-directed manner in the first place, optimizing for some unknown goal; there exists significant research trying to evaluate systems for said behaviors. However, the most rigorous definitions of goal-directedness we currently have are difficult to compute in real-world settings. Drawing upon this previous literature, we explore policy goal-directedness within reinforcement learning (RL) environments. In our findings, we propose a different family of definitions of the goal-directedness of a policy that analyze whether it is well-modeled as near-optimal for many (sparse) reward functions. We operationalize this preliminary definition of goal-directedness and test it in toy Markov decision process (MDP) environments. Furthermore, we explore how goal-directedness could be measured in frontier large-language models (LLMs). Our contribution is a definition of goal-directedness that is simpler and more easily computable in order to approach the question of whether AI systems could pursue dangerous goals. We recommend further exploration of measuring coherence and goal-directedness, based on our findings.

Escalation Risks from Language Models in Military and Diplomatic Decision-Making

Governments are increasingly considering integrating autonomous AI agents in high-stakes military and foreign-policy decision-making, especially with the emergence of advanced generative AI models like GPT-4. Our work aims to scrutinize the behavior of multiple AI agents in simulated wargames, specifically focusing on their predilection to take escalatory actions that may exacerbate multilateral conflicts. Drawing on political science and international relations literature about escalation dynamics, we design a novel wargame simulation and scoring framework to assess the escalation risks of actions taken by these agents in different scenarios. Contrary to prior studies, our research provides both qualitative and quantitative insights and focuses on large language models (LLMs). We find that all five studied off-the-shelf LLMs show forms of escalation and difficult-to-predict escalation patterns. We observe that models tend to develop arms-race dynamics, leading to greater conflict, and in rare cases, even to the deployment of nuclear weapons. Qualitatively, we also collect the models' reported reasonings for chosen actions and observe worrying justifications based on deterrence and first-strike tactics. Given the high stakes of military and foreign-policy contexts, we recommend further examination and cautious consideration before deploying autonomous language model agents for strategic military or diplomatic decision-making.