Self-Modification of Policy and Utility Function in Rational Agents
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Any agent that is part of the environment it interacts with and has versatile actuators (such as arms and fingers), will in principle have the ability to self-modify -- for example by changing its own source code. As we continue to create more and more intelligent agents, chances increase that they will learn about this ability. The question is: will they want to use it? For example, highly intelligent systems may find ways to change their goals to something more easily achievable, thereby `escaping' the control of their designers. In an important paper, Omohundro (2008) argued that goal preservation is a fundamental drive of any intelligent system, since a goal is more likely to be achieved if future versions of the agent strive towards the same goal. In this paper, we formalise this argument in general reinforcement learning, and explore situations where it fails. Our conclusion is that the self-modification possibility is harmless if and only if the value function of the agent anticipates the consequences of self-modifications and use the current utility function when evaluating the future.
Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 10 May 2016.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 3; 2026: 7.
11 papers.
- 2025Reward Shaping to Mitigate Reward Hacking in RLHFcited by 88
- 2025Huxley-G"odel Machine: Human-Level Coding Agent Development by an Approximation of the Optimal Self-Improving Machinecited by 44
- 2025The Singapore Consensus on Global AI Safety Research Prioritiescited by 9
- 2024Towards Shutdownable Agents via Stochastic Choicecited by 2
- 2026Deconstructing Superintelligence: Identity, Self-Modification and Diff'erancecited by 1
- 2026A Model-Free Universal AIcited by 0
- 2026Sustaining AI safety: Control-theoretic external impossibility, intrinsic necessity, and structural requirementscited by 0
- 2026Modification-Considering Value Learning for Reward Hacking Mitigation in RLcited by 0
- 2026Recursive Criticality of AI Self-Improvementcited by 0
- 2026Generalized Agent Iteration: One Formal Framework for Iterative Policy Improvement and Recursive Self-Improvementcited by 0
- 2026Evolutionary Safety of Recursive Self-Improving AI: Taxonomy, Risk Discovery, and Evaluationcited by 0
- 2026Evolutionary Safety of Recursive Self-Improving AI: Taxonomy, Risk Discovery, and Evaluation25 Sep 2026
- 2026Generalized Agent Iteration: One Formal Framework for Iterative Policy Improvement and Recursive Self-Improvement11 Sep 2026
- 2026Recursive Criticality of AI Self-Improvement31 Aug 2026
- 2026Modification-Considering Value Learning for Reward Hacking Mitigation in RL27 Jun 2026
- 2026Sustaining AI safety: Control-theoretic external impossibility, intrinsic necessity, and structural requirements13 May 2026
- 2026Deconstructing Superintelligence: Identity, Self-Modification and Diff'erance21 Apr 2026
- 2026A Model-Free Universal AI26 Feb 2026
- 2025Huxley-G"odel Machine: Human-Level Coding Agent Development by an Approximation of the Optimal Self-Improving Machine24 Oct 2025
- 2025The Singapore Consensus on Global AI Safety Research Priorities25 Jun 2025
- 2025Reward Shaping to Mitigate Reward Hacking in RLHF26 Feb 2025
- 2024Towards Shutdownable Agents via Stochastic Choice30 Jun 2024