Consequentialist Objectives and Catastrophe

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.15017v1
• Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 09:20:35 GMT
• Title: Consequentialist Objectives and Catastrophe
• Abstract summary: We study the prospect of catastrophic outcomes induced by AIs operating in complex environments.<n>We formalize this by establishing conditions that provably lead to such outcomes.<n>Our results apply to any objective produced by modern industrial AI development pipelines.
• Score: 11.047473522765136
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Because human preferences are too complex to codify, AIs operate with misspecified objectives. Optimizing such objectives often produces undesirable outcomes; this phenomenon is known as reward hacking. Such outcomes are not necessarily catastrophic. Indeed, most examples of reward hacking in previous literature are benign. And typically, objectives can be modified to resolve the issue. We study the prospect of catastrophic outcomes induced by AIs operating in complex environments. We argue that, when capabilities are sufficiently advanced, pursuing a fixed consequentialist objective tends to result in catastrophic outcomes. We formalize this by establishing conditions that provably lead to such outcomes. Under these conditions, simple or random behavior is safe. Catastrophic risk arises due to extraordinary competence rather than incompetence. With a fixed consequentialist objective, avoiding catastrophe requires constraining AI capabilities. In fact, constraining capabilities the right amount not only averts catastrophe but yields valuable outcomes. Our results apply to any objective produced by modern industrial AI development pipelines.

Related papers

• The Boundaries of Automation: A Theory of Persistent Human Participation [107.84677954791773]
  We argue that human participation may persist even with highly capable AI systems.<n>In some activities, the target is not fully specified in advance but instead emerges through the interaction itself.<n>This perspective has important implications for the limits of automation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-23T17:33:43Z)
• Trustworthy AI Suffers from Invariance Conflicts and Causality is The Solution [80.98492754957466]
  Core trustworthy AI objectives, such as fairness, robustness, privacy, and explainability, are hard to achieve simultaneously.<n>This paper argues that causality is necessary to understand and balance trade-offs in performance and multiple objectives of trustworthy AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T14:26:28Z)
• The Hot Mess of AI: How Does Misalignment Scale With Model Intelligence and Task Complexity? [53.15349353876531]
  As AI becomes more capable, we entrust it with more general and consequential tasks.<n>We operationalize this question using a bias-variance decomposition of the errors made by AI models.<n>As more capable AIs pursue harder tasks, requiring more sequential action and thought, our results predict failures to be accompanied by more incoherent behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T14:52:03Z)
• Take Goodhart Seriously: Principled Limit on General-Purpose AI Optimization [0.0]
  We argue that approximation, estimation, and optimization errors guarantee systematic deviations from the intended objective.<n>A principled limit on the optimization of General-Purpose AI systems is necessary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-03T09:25:12Z)
• Evaluating Intelligence via Trial and Error [59.80426744891971]
  We introduce Survival Game as a framework to evaluate intelligence based on the number of failed attempts in a trial-and-error process.<n>When the expectation and variance of failure counts are both finite, it signals the ability to consistently find solutions to new challenges.<n>Our results show that while AI systems achieve the Autonomous Level in simple tasks, they are still far from it in more complex tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T05:59:45Z)
• Absolutist AI [0.0]
  Training AI systems with absolute constraints may make considerable progress on many AI safety problems. It provides a guardrail for avoiding the very worst outcomes of misalignment. It could prevent AIs from causing catastrophes for the sake of very valuable consequences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-19T03:40:37Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• Bandit Social Learning: Exploration under Myopic Behavior [54.767961587919075]
  We study social learning dynamics motivated by reviews on online platforms.<n>Agents collectively follow a simple multi-armed bandit protocol, but each agent acts myopically, without regards to exploration.<n>We derive stark learning failures for any such behavior, and provide matching positive results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-15T01:57:57Z)
• Robustness of different loss functions and their impact on networks learning capability [3.1727619150610837]
  We will look at how fast the accuracy of different models decreases when we change the pixels corresponding to the most salient gradients. We will use two sets of loss functions, generalized loss functions like Binary cross-entropy or BCE and specialized loss functions like Dice loss or focal loss.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-15T19:12:42Z)
• Adversarial Visual Robustness by Causal Intervention [56.766342028800445]
  Adversarial training is the de facto most promising defense against adversarial examples. Yet, its passive nature inevitably prevents it from being immune to unknown attackers. We provide a causal viewpoint of adversarial vulnerability: the cause is the confounder ubiquitously existing in learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-17T14:23:54Z)
• AI Failures: A Review of Underlying Issues [0.0]
  We focus on AI failures on account of flaws in conceptualization, design and deployment. We find that AI systems fail on account of omission and commission errors in the design of the AI system. An AI system is quite likely to fail in situations where, in effect, it is called upon to deliver moral judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-18T15:31:29Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.