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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In a theoretical model, Hadfield-Menell et al. [2016] showed agents disabling their off-switches.”
From The alignment problem from a deep learning perspective (2022) · cites this paper as Hadfield-Menell et al., 2016
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
Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach
Ligęza, A. (1995) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/0925-2312(95)90020-9 · Cited by 1,867
On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B
Kerr, S. (1975) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/255378 · Cited by 1,585
Distortion and Risk in Optimal Incentive Contracts
Baker, G. P. (2002) · The Journal of Human Resources · doi:10.2307/3069615 · Cited by 460
Cooperative Inverse Reinforcement Learning
Hadfield-Menell, D., Dragan, A., Abbeel, P., & Russell, S. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1606.03137 · Cited by 413
Self-citationCognition and Incomplete Contracts
Jean Tirole, Z. (2009) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.99.1.265 · Cited by 269
Omohundro, S. M. (2018) · Artificial Intelligence Safety and Security · doi:10.1201/9781351251389-3 · Cited by 148
Gibbons, R. S. (1998) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w6695 · Cited by 99
Should We Fear Supersmart Robots?
Russell, S. (2016) · Scientific American · doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0616-58 · Cited by 60
Self-citationDewey, D. (2011) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22887-2_35 · Cited by 52
A Decision-Theoretic Model of Assistance
Fern, A., Natarajan, S., Judah, K., & Tadepalli, P. V. (2014) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.4213 · Cited by 44
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Nate Soares, Benja Fallenstein, Stuart Armstrong, and Eliezer Yudkowsky. Corrigibility. In Workshops at the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Ar- tificial Intelligence, 2015.
- Tirole, 2009] Jean Tirole. Cognition and incomplete con- tracts. The American Economic Review, 99(1):265-294, 2009.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Russell, S. (2020) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190905033.003.0012 · Cited by 289
Self-citationHybrid collective intelligence in a human–AI society
Peeters, M. M. M., van Diggelen, J., van den Bosch, K., Bronkhorst, A., Neerincx, M. A., Schraagen, J. M., & Raaijmakers, S. (2021) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-020-01005-y · Cited by 229
Leike, J., Martic, M., Krakovna, V., Ortega, P. A., Everitt, T., Lefrancq, A., Orseau, L., & Legg, S. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1711.09883 · Cited by 240
Hadfield-Menell, D., Milli, S., Abbeel, P., Russell, S., & Dragan, A. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1711.02827 · Cited by 125
Self-citationCyber-security and reinforcement learning — A brief survey
Adawadkar, A. M. K., & Kulkarni, N. (2022) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2022.105116 · Cited by 146
Metadata
- Authors
- Hadfield-Menell, D., Dragan, A., Abbeel, P., & Russell, S.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- International Computer Science Institute (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2016
- Pages
- 220-227
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
