mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Incorrigibility in the CIRL Framework

arXiv 1709.06275 ↗First posted 19 Sep 2017cs.AIcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

A value learning system has incentives to follow shutdown instructions, assuming the shutdown instruction provides information (in the technical sense) about which actions lead to valuable outcomes. However, this assumption is not robust to model mis-specification (e.g., in the case of programmer errors). We demonstrate this by presenting some Supervised POMDP scenarios in which errors in the parameterized reward function remove the incentive to follow shutdown commands. These difficulties parallel those discussed by Soares et al. (2015) in their paper on corrigibility. We argue that it is important to consider systems that follow shutdown commands under some weaker set of assumptions (e.g., that one small verified module is correctly implemented; as opposed to an entire prior probability distribution and/or parameterized reward function). We discuss some difficulties with simple ways to attempt to attain these sorts of guarantees in a value learning framework.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 19 Sep 2017.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 0; 2023: 2; 2024: 2; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.

9 papers.