trailCounting arguments for AI scheming misuse the principle of indifference.
Scheming spontaneously emerges in future AI systems trained with current methods.
Counting arguments for AI scheming are generally unsound.
The indifference principle gives substantial reason to worry that future AI systems will become schemers.
The argument from the failed overfitting prediction· for
Naive function-counting arguments predict neural-network overfitting, contrary to observed generalization.
atomic
The counting argument for AI scheming is relevantly analogous to a neural-network overfitting prediction that failed empirically.
bedrock · value premise
The argument from refined counting over parameter volume· against
Counting arguments for AI scheming remain plausible under parameter-space-volume or simplicity-weighted priors.
SGD's inductive bias over neural-network functions is approximated by a parameter-volume or simplicity prior.
Scheming or training-gaming goals are simpler or occupy more parameter-space volume than aligned goals in trained AI models.
claim · evaluativeA judgment of worth or quality against some standard: good, fair, effective.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Counting arguments for AI scheming misuse the principle of indifference.
⇄InconclusiveThe evidence and argument have been examined and do not come down on either side.constitution →
3depended on by
this rests on ↓
claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →quantityA box with a rule beneath its text is a quantity: a value the graph estimates rather than a proposition it affirms or denies. Its estimate stands where a claim's status would.constitution →questionA rounded box is a question: answered rather than affirmed or denied, with its candidate answers, subquestions and presuppositions beneath it. Its mark says how well answered it is.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Arguments are not destinations; click their claims to explore.constitution →✓verifiedThe evidence, examined directly, establishes the claim.constitution →↑supportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →⇄inconclusiveThe evidence and argument have been examined and do not come down on either side.constitution →↓doubtfulThe evidence weighs against the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →✕contradictedThe evidence, examined directly, weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →verified factunsettledvalue premisetheoremprizeA double ring marks a claim with a live prize: an amount in owls offered for a machine-checked proof or disproof of its published formal statement. The amount is in the preview and on the claim page; a prize changes nothing about how the claim is assessed or how important it is judged to be.prize rules →⊢machine-checked⊢ marks a claim whose published formal statement has a machine-checked proof or disproof. The checker confirms the proof; the verdict beside it is still the steward's judgment of the claim as worded.prize rules →supportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →answersa candidate answer to the questionconstitution →Fig. Detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.