Evaluating Language-Model Agents on Realistic Autonomous Tasks
Authors:
Megan Kinniment,
Lucas Jun Koba Sato,
Haoxing Du,
Brian Goodrich,
Max Hasin,
Lawrence Chan,
Luke Harold Miles,
Tao R. Lin,
Hjalmar Wijk,
Joel Burget,
Aaron Ho,
Elizabeth Barnes,
Paul Christiano
Abstract:
In this report, we explore the ability of language model agents to acquire resources, create copies of themselves, and adapt to novel challenges they encounter in the wild. We refer to this cluster of capabilities as "autonomous replication and adaptation" or ARA. We believe that systems capable of ARA could have wide-reaching and hard-to-anticipate consequences, and that measuring and forecasting…
▽ More
In this report, we explore the ability of language model agents to acquire resources, create copies of themselves, and adapt to novel challenges they encounter in the wild. We refer to this cluster of capabilities as "autonomous replication and adaptation" or ARA. We believe that systems capable of ARA could have wide-reaching and hard-to-anticipate consequences, and that measuring and forecasting ARA may be useful for informing measures around security, monitoring, and alignment. Additionally, once a system is capable of ARA, placing bounds on a system's capabilities may become significantly more difficult.
We construct four simple example agents that combine language models with tools that allow them to take actions in the world. We then evaluate these agents on 12 tasks relevant to ARA. We find that these language model agents can only complete the easiest tasks from this list, although they make some progress on the more challenging tasks. Unfortunately, these evaluations are not adequate to rule out the possibility that near-future agents will be capable of ARA. In particular, we do not think that these evaluations provide good assurance that the ``next generation'' of language models (e.g. 100x effective compute scaleup on existing models) will not yield agents capable of ARA, unless intermediate evaluations are performed during pretraining. Relatedly, we expect that fine-tuning of the existing models could produce substantially more competent agents, even if the fine-tuning is not directly targeted at ARA.
△ Less
Submitted 4 January, 2024; v1 submitted 18 December, 2023;
originally announced December 2023.
A Simulator for Hedonic Games
Authors:
Luke Harold Miles
Abstract:
Hedonic games are meant to model how coalitions of people form and break apart in the real world. However, it is difficult to run simulations when everything must be done by hand on paper. We present an online software that allows fast and visual simulation of several types of hedonic games. http://lukemiles.org/hedonic-games/
Hedonic games are meant to model how coalitions of people form and break apart in the real world. However, it is difficult to run simulations when everything must be done by hand on paper. We present an online software that allows fast and visual simulation of several types of hedonic games. http://lukemiles.org/hedonic-games/
△ Less
Submitted 25 July, 2017; v1 submitted 26 June, 2017;
originally announced June 2017.
The Complexity of Campaigning
Authors:
Cory Siler,
Luke Harold Miles,
Judy Goldsmith
Abstract:
In "The Logic of Campaigning", Dean and Parikh consider a candidate making campaign statements to appeal to the voters. They model these statements as Boolean formulas over variables that represent stances on the issues, and study optimal candidate strategies under three proposed models of voter preferences based on the assignments that satisfy these formulas. We prove that voter utility evaluatio…
▽ More
In "The Logic of Campaigning", Dean and Parikh consider a candidate making campaign statements to appeal to the voters. They model these statements as Boolean formulas over variables that represent stances on the issues, and study optimal candidate strategies under three proposed models of voter preferences based on the assignments that satisfy these formulas. We prove that voter utility evaluation is computationally hard under these preference models (in one case, #P-hard), along with certain problems related to candidate strategic reasoning. Our results raise questions about the desirable characteristics of a voter preference model and to what extent a polynomial-time-evaluable function can capture them.
△ Less
Submitted 17 July, 2017; v1 submitted 19 June, 2017;
originally announced June 2017.
