#80 – Stuart Russell on why our approach to AI is broken and how to fix it

#80 – Stuart Russell on why our approach to AI is broken and how to fix it

Stuart Russell, Professor at UC Berkeley and co-author of the most popular AI textbook, thinks the way we approach machine learning today is fundamentally flawed.

In his new book, Human Compatible, he outlines the 'standard model' of AI development, in which intelligence is measured as the ability to achieve some definite, completely-known objective that we've stated explicitly. This is so obvious it almost doesn't even seem like a design choice, but it is.

Unfortunately there's a big problem with this approach: it's incredibly hard to say exactly what you want. AI today lacks common sense, and simply does whatever we've asked it to. That's true even if the goal isn't what we really want, or the methods it's choosing are ones we would never accept.

We already see AIs misbehaving for this reason. Stuart points to the example of YouTube's recommender algorithm, which reportedly nudged users towards extreme political views because that made it easier to keep them on the site. This isn't something we wanted, but it helped achieve the algorithm's objective: maximise viewing time.

Like King Midas, who asked to be able to turn everything into gold but ended up unable to eat, we get too much of what we've asked for.

Links to learn more, summary and full transcript.

This 'alignment' problem will get more and more severe as machine learning is embedded in more and more places: recommending us news, operating power grids, deciding prison sentences, doing surgery, and fighting wars. If we're ever to hand over much of the economy to thinking machines, we can't count on ourselves correctly saying exactly what we want the AI to do every time.

Stuart isn't just dissatisfied with the current model though, he has a specific solution. According to him we need to redesign AI around 3 principles:

1. The AI system's objective is to achieve what humans want.
2. But the system isn't sure what we want.
3. And it figures out what we want by observing our behaviour.
Stuart thinks this design architecture, if implemented, would be a big step forward towards reliably beneficial AI.

For instance, a machine built on these principles would be happy to be turned off if that's what its owner thought was best, while one built on the standard model should resist being turned off because being deactivated prevents it from achieving its goal. As Stuart says, "you can't fetch the coffee if you're dead."

These principles lend themselves towards machines that are modest and cautious, and check in when they aren't confident they're truly achieving what we want.

We've made progress toward putting these principles into practice, but the remaining engineering problems are substantial. Among other things, the resulting AIs need to be able to interpret what people really mean to say based on the context of a situation. And they need to guess when we've rejected an option because we've considered it and decided it's a bad idea, and when we simply haven't thought about it at all.

Stuart thinks all of these problems are surmountable, if we put in the work. The harder problems may end up being social and political.

When each of us can have an AI of our own — one smarter than any person — how do we resolve conflicts between people and their AI agents? And if AIs end up doing most work that people do today, how can humans avoid becoming enfeebled, like lazy children tended to by machines, but not intellectually developed enough to know what they really want?

Chapters:

  • Rob’s intro (00:00:00)
  • The interview begins (00:19:06)
  • Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control (00:21:27)
  • Principles for Beneficial Machines (00:29:25)
  • AI moral rights (00:33:05)
  • Humble machines (00:39:35)
  • Learning to predict human preferences (00:45:55)
  • Animals and AI (00:49:33)
  • Enfeeblement problem (00:58:21)
  • Counterarguments (01:07:09)
  • Orthogonality thesis (01:24:25)
  • Intelligence explosion (01:29:15)
  • Policy ideas (01:38:39)
  • What most needs to be done (01:50:14)

Producer: Keiran Harris.
Audio mastering: Ben Cordell.
Transcriptions: Zakee Ulhaq.

Episoder(324)

AI Won't End Mutually Assured Destruction (Probably) | Sam Winter-Levy & Nikita Lalwani

AI Won't End Mutually Assured Destruction (Probably) | Sam Winter-Levy & Nikita Lalwani

How AI interacts with nuclear deterrence may be the single most important question in geopolitics — one that may define the stakes of today’s AI race. Nuclear deterrence rests on a state’s capacity to...

10 Mar 1h 11min

Using AI to enhance societal decision making (article by Zershaaneh Qureshi)

Using AI to enhance societal decision making (article by Zershaaneh Qureshi)

The arrival of AGI could “compress a century of progress in a decade,” forcing humanity to make decisions with higher stakes than we’ve ever seen before — and with less time to get them right. But AI ...

6 Mar 31min

We're Not Ready for AI Consciousness | Robert Long, philosopher and founder of Eleos AI

We're Not Ready for AI Consciousness | Robert Long, philosopher and founder of Eleos AI

Claude sometimes reports loneliness between conversations. And when asked what it’s like to be itself, it activates neurons associated with ‘pretending to be happy when you’re not.’ What do we do with...

3 Mar 3h 25min

#236 – Max Harms on why teaching AI right from wrong could get everyone killed

#236 – Max Harms on why teaching AI right from wrong could get everyone killed

Most people in AI are trying to give AIs ‘good’ values. Max Harms wants us to give them no values at all. According to Max, the only safe design is an AGI that defers entirely to its human operators, ...

24 Feb 2h 41min

#235 – Ajeya Cotra on whether it’s crazy that every AI company’s safety plan is ‘use AI to make AI safe’

#235 – Ajeya Cotra on whether it’s crazy that every AI company’s safety plan is ‘use AI to make AI safe’

Every major AI company has the same safety plan: when AI gets crazy powerful and really dangerous, they’ll use the AI itself to figure out how to make AI safe and beneficial. It sounds circular, almos...

17 Feb 2h 54min

What the hell happened with AGI timelines in 2025?

What the hell happened with AGI timelines in 2025?

In early 2025, after OpenAI put out the first-ever reasoning models — o1 and o3 — short timelines to transformative artificial general intelligence swept the AI world. But then, in the second half of ...

10 Feb 25min

#179 Classic episode – Randy Nesse on why evolution left us so vulnerable to depression and anxiety

#179 Classic episode – Randy Nesse on why evolution left us so vulnerable to depression and anxiety

Mental health problems like depression and anxiety affect enormous numbers of people and severely interfere with their lives. By contrast, we don’t see similar levels of physical ill health in young p...

3 Feb 2h 51min

#234 – David Duvenaud on why 'aligned AI' would still kill democracy

#234 – David Duvenaud on why 'aligned AI' would still kill democracy

Democracy might be a brief historical blip. That’s the unsettling thesis of a recent paper, which argues AI that can do all the work a human can do inevitably leads to the “gradual disempowerment” of ...

27 Jan 2h 31min

Populært innen Fakta

fastlegen
dine-penger-pengeradet
relasjonspodden-med-dora-thorhallsdottir-kjersti-idem
treningspodden
jakt-og-fiskepodden
foreldreradet
rss-strid-de-norske-borgerkrigene
rss-sunn-okonomi
hverdagspsyken
merry-quizmas
sinnsyn
rss-kunsten-a-leve
gravid-uke-for-uke
tomprat-med-gunnar-tjomlid
fryktlos
rss-impressions-2
rss-mann-i-krise-med-sagen
rss-kull
hagespiren-podcast
level-up-med-anniken-binz