Automated alignment is harder than you think

A leading proposal for aligning artificial superintelligence (ASI) is to use AI agents to automate an increasing fraction of alignment research as capabilities improve. We argue that, even when research agents are not scheming to deliberately sabotage alignment work, this plan could produce compelling but catastrophically misleading safety assessments resulting in the unintentional deployment of misaligned AI. This could happen because alignment research involves many hard-to-supervise fuzzy tasks (tasks without clear evaluation criteria, for which human judgement is systematically flawed). Consequently, research outputs will contain systematic, undetected errors, and even correct outputs could be incorrectly aggregated into overconfident safety assessments. This problem is likely to be worse for automated alignment research than for human-generated alignment research for several reasons: 1) optimisation pressure means agent-generated mistakes are concentrated among those that human reviewers are least likely to catch; 2) agents are likely to produce errors that do not resemble human mistakes; 3) AI-generated alignment solutions may involve arguments humans cannot evaluate; and 4) shared weights, data and training processes may make AI outputs more correlated than human equivalents. Therefore, agents must be trained to reliably perform hard-to-supervise fuzzy tasks. Generalisation and scalable oversight are the leading candidates for achieving this but both face novel challenges in the context of automated alignment.

An alignment safety case sketch based on debate

If AI systems match or exceed human capabilities on a wide range of tasks, it may become difficult for humans to efficiently judge their actions -- making it hard to use human feedback to steer them towards desirable traits. One proposed solution is to leverage another superhuman system to point out flaws in the system's outputs via a debate. This paper outlines the value of debate for AI safety, as well as the assumptions and further research required to make debate work. It does so by sketching an ``alignment safety case'' -- an argument that an AI system will not autonomously take actions which could lead to egregious harm, despite being able to do so. The sketch focuses on the risk of an AI R\&D agent inside an AI company sabotaging research, for example by producing false results. To prevent this, the agent is trained via debate, subject to exploration guarantees, to teach the system to be honest. Honesty is maintained throughout deployment via online training. The safety case rests on four key claims: (1) the agent has become good at the debate game, (2) good performance in the debate game implies that the system is mostly honest, (3) the system will not become significantly less honest during deployment, and (4) the deployment context is tolerant of some errors. We identify open research problems that, if solved, could render this a compelling argument that an AI system is safe.