CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 120Ethics and Social Impacts of AIPsychiatry, Mental Health, NeuroscienceReinforcement Learning in Robotics

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 10 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Off-Switch Game

Open access
Hadfield-Menell, Dylan, Dragan, Anca, Abbeel, Pieter, Russell, Stuart·2016·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1611.08219arXiv 1611.08219
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

It is clear that one of the primary tools we can use to mitigate the potential risk from a misbehaving AI system is the ability to turn the system off. As the capabilities of AI systems improve, it is important to ensure that such systems do not adopt subgoals that prevent a human from switching them off. This is a challenge because many formulations of rational agents create strong incentives for self-preservation. This is not caused by a built-in instinct, but because a rational agent will maximize expected utility and cannot achieve whatever objective it has been given if it is dead. Our goal is to study the incentives an agent has to allow itself to be switched off. We analyze a simple game between a human H and a robot R, where H can press R's off switch but R can disable the off switch. A traditional agent takes its reward function for granted: we show that such agents have an incentive to disable the off switch, except in the special case where H is perfectly rational. Our key insight is that for R to want to preserve its off switch, it needs to be uncertain about the utility associated with the outcome, and to treat H's actions as important observations about that utility. (R also has no incentive to switch itself off in this setting.) We conclude that giving machines an appropriate level of uncertainty about their objectives leads to safer designs, and we argue that this setting is a useful generalization of the classical AI paradigm of rational agents.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1611.08219

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Nate Soares, Benja Fallenstein, Stuart Armstrong, and Eliezer Yudkowsky. Corrigibility. In Workshops at the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Ar- tificial Intelligence, 2015.
  2. Tirole, 2009] Jean Tirole. Cognition and incomplete con- tracts. The American Economic Review, 99(1):265-294, 2009.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hadfield-Menell, D., Dragan, A., Abbeel, P., & Russell, S.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • International Computer Science Institute (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2016
Pages
220-227
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1611.08219
arXiv
1611.08219
OpenAlex
W2558801266
Cited by
119
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6
FWCI
23.89
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • National Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1106400, 1652083)
  • Open Philanthropy Project
  • Future of Life Institute
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Psychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
Keywords
AI safety, self-preservation, human-robot interaction, rational agents, expected utility maximization, reward function

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review