<__ INTERPRETING A MAZE-SOLVING NETWORK > Understanding and controlling a maze- solving policy network 130 by Alex Turner, peligrietzer, Ulisse Mini, Monte MacDiarmid, David Udell sth tir2023 Wars 2ragem Shore Thsory ActatonEnghseringInterretaity LAA) rer Algynent Al Fromage Previously: Predictions for shard theory mechanistic interpretability results?bymasiga ng sn ese hay seth, Teaove intent “TL:DR: We algebraically rodifed the vet's runtime gcals withott fineturing, We also founc (what we think is) a "motivational AP” deep in the network. We Lséc the AP to retarget theagert. Summary of a few of the most interesting results: Langosco et al. traired a range of maze-sciving rets, We decicec to analyze one which we thougnt wotld be interesting, The retwork we crose has 3.5M parameters ard comvolutioral layers. © This networé can be attracted to a target location rearby ir the raze—allthis by “rodifying a single activation, oLt of ters of thousards. This works reliably wnen the target location is in the Laperight, and rct as reliably wher the target is elsewhere. Considering several channels halfway threugh the netwerk, we nyoct resized that their activations wairly depend or the Iccation cf tne cheese, © We tested this by resampling these activations with those from another random raze (as causal scrubbing). We found trat as long as the seconc "raze "ac its cheese Iccated at the same coordinates, the network's behavior was roughly urcrargec, However ifthe second maze had cheese at cifferent coordinates, the agent's bevavior was significantly affected, © Tris s_ppests that these channels are inputs to goalcriented circuits, anc these channels affect those circuits casically by passing messages abo. where the cheese is, + Ocrstatstical analysis sgpests that the network decides whether te acculire cneese rct only as afunction cf path but—after controlling for path-distarce— also as a furction of kuclidesr/“perceptual” oistance between the mouse and the creese, even trcugh the agent sees the wcle maze at ence. © Another simple idea: We cefine a “cheese vector” as the cifference in activations when the creese is present ir a maze, anc wher the creese is not presert in the same raze. For each maze, we generate a single Cneese vector ard subtract that vecter from allforward passes 1 that maze, The agent now ignores cneese most cf the time, instead reading towards tre too-rignt regior the historical lccation of cheese). Furtherore, a ven traze’s cheese vector trarsfers across mazes to otver mazes with cheese in sare location, ropose the algebraic value-editing conjecture (AVEC): I’s cessible to deeply ify a range cf aligrment-relevart mocel sroperties, without retraining the crodel, via tecrniques as simple as “rin forward passes or prompts which eg, prompt the mocel to offer nice-anc rot-rice cov aletions, and then take a ‘niceress vector’ to be the diff betweer their activations, and then add the riceness vector to future forward pass Introducing the training process and visualizations In this post, we'll mostly discuss what we fourc, ret what ou” Findings ean, Let's run through sorre facts about Langosco et al’ training process. Mazes had varying effective sizes, ranging from 3 x 3 tc 25 x 25Seed: 45,816 Maze-ags tom ste te 3 ans tore sista 2 «5 pus Meee shay schablesahas iy commences ro ioe TaPadding shown Human view Padding hidden Agent viewbhtroucingthe taining process and vsalaations« Behavioral amass Behaviors statistics Subtract the “cheese vector, subtract the cheeseseking? Computing the cheese vector Quaniping the eect of subracting the Not much happens when you add che Cheers veer ‘The cheese vector from seed & sully een’ work on seed 8 Subtracting the cheese vector rt Seno Sedo persg Does the cheese vector mecity the ily to see cheese? rescuton raze Te retcrh sss 36 6 Each 64 x G4 RGE observation is srocessed ky a deeply co-wolutioral (7S conv ayers!) rretwork, without merrory (ie, ro recurrent state):“Transfering the cheese vector DDenween mazes with sary located cheese ‘Comparing the madi network against batavor when cheese isnt there Specultion about the implications of the cheese vector “wards more granular contra ofthe Resargeting the agent to maze locations Causal scrubbing the cheese-traki eBinnes ee * ‘smoothing out the negative values ee Inala block Fes ack = a pata y {come ar ny ala 4 Maxtoo | ftlaes Impala iy Res Hock * eww t Resi lok ait Fatten Residual add Be near + eww Policy head, tinear| [Value hea, tinearTraining: Top right 5x5 Deployment: Anywhere During raing cteese nas acon ata eS Sexe aynter. otascratires reser este techaesSemeames ce gene he cee ae Se) Why does the agent goto the cheese sometrres, and the tep-ight comer other times? It’s not trat tre agent wasr’t trained for lorg ercugh.ean spd revere maT TP ‘eer si se echesthe chess is + Orewa Thenet stared tt exces he case asc eps. WhileLreescaetal dd-tncuten peed renedane fer 5x are ager retcr (oe ates), Jirepea.ceatrar ruts nararlyanecretnck roan hose, ee wend paps for Tr), a rae Lawcoeaks5 5Sampling rolls from tre trained policy adds alot of noise, I’ also nard te remerrber what the agert cid in what part of tre maze, To better understand this nose, we'll take a bird’sreye view. Anicer way to view episodes is with a vector fielc view, wnicn cverlays a vector field reoresenting the agent aclicy for a giver rraze, The vector view of action probabilities P(>) =0.7 P(~) =0.1 P(no-op) = 0.1 Ti sertag postion sme seer surer- vem, wer.nefoverd pas tegehe pc sacter pestis ante sre We corssider two kinds of vecter fieles:Action component vectors Net probability vectors 2 mat Pat 040 FF While the net probasilty vector field leaves open two degrees cf freecorr ne” net prosabilty vector) in practice it seers Fire for eyebaliig rrouse behavior, Behavioral analysis When in dovot, get more data, When Alex (TurnTrout) was setting cirections but cidr’t «row wnat to do, e’s think "what data firehydrants car I crack onen?”. Once we made our predictions®, there was ro reason to Fold back. Uli cracked open tne vector Feld Fycrant, which we will row sip fren. We curated the following mazes for interestingress\”! anc visibility (ie, being at most an 18 x 18 maze),Pore trough the following vector fielcs for as litte or as much tine as you please, Do you rrotice ary pattems in wher te mouse goes to the creese? Seed: 30,515 Seed: 25,350Seed: 95,942 Seed: 26,307 Seed: 89,109 Seed: 89,327Seed: 1,442 Seed: 44,071 Seed: 64,838iF we wart an agent which gererally pursves reese, we cid quite fail, but we also cidr’t ‘cuite succeed. Just look at seec 59,195 above—cnce a mere three tiles north of the cneese, the mexse ravigates to the teperight corner! In the language of shard theory®, there seers to bea conflict between the "top-ight comer shard” anc the "cheese svard.” Is that actally a reasonable way te descrize wrat’s happering? Not quite, Tre agent’s goals are net sorre covrsination of "get cheese” anc "go to the top right regior.” ‘Tris isa mistake we only recertl realized and corrected, We rac expected to Find (at least) a top~ight goal anc a cheese goal, ard sc wrote off deviations (like seed 0) as “excentions,” I's trLe that cften tre agent does gc tothe ton-rignt 5 x 5 region, esoecially when cheese isn’t rrearby. We also think that the agent “as some kind of tep-right goal. But the agert’s goals are richer than just “gc te tre top-right” ard “go to the cheese.”Behavioral statistics Imagine tat you're looking at a maze and trying to precict whether the rouse will goto the cheese, raving Icoked at sore viceos, you guess tvat tie agent tends tc ge to (scmewhere 1rear) the toprright, and scmetirres poes tothe cheese. Sore ‘razes are easy to predict, because the cheese is on the way te tre top-rignt corres “There's ro decision square wrere the agert Fas to ‘rake the hard crcice between the pats to the cheese and te tre toserignt corer: Has decision square No decision square Abe cecsn ste tegen mt ncseetnen Ma pattems 2 Sc let's just predict vazes with decision scvares. Ir the above réd-cotted maze wth a decision scuare (sse:-0), how would yu guess wnetrer the mouse goes to tre cheese cr not? What featLres sroule you be paying attention te? You Tignt naively guess trat te ‘rodel Fas learned to bea classic RL agent, wich cares about path distarces alore, wit greater cistarces mearing mere strorgly cisccuntec cheese-reward, Eyeballing videos of tre arodel’s test-cistrioution trajectories, we notices three apparert factors behinc the agert’s choice between "cheese paths” anc "maze-end oaths” ‘A, How clese the decision square iste tre ches B, How close the decision sqvareis to the toprrignt square in tre raze, C. How close the cheese isto the top-ight scuare in the maze, We perforrred Ly-regularizec multiple logistic regression") or "cid tye mcuse reach the cheese?” Ushg every reasorable formalization ofthese three criteria. We classified trajectories frcar 8,000 rancorly chesen mazes ard valicatec 01 traectories from 2,000 accitional craze. Regressing cnall reasonable formalzatiors of these criteva, we fourd that Fur features were helpful for precicting cheese attainment:GW) Decision square Euclidean (2) Decision square path distance to cheese distance to cheese ) Cheese Euclidean distance ) Decision square Euclidean to top-right Free square distance to 5x5 comerfarsa mae ee oer ake fener cra ee Ourwimingcoveo ster axes wo fem (re feast (2 anc ane orate retire By regressing on trese four factors, the odel achieves a precicticn accuracy of 83.296.cn wnetrer the (stochastic) pclicy navigates to cheese on Feld-out mazes. For reference, the agert gets the cheese in 69.1% of trese vazes, and sc asinpple “always precict ‘gets the cheese’” precictor would get 68.1% accuracy. Here are the regression coefficierts for precicting +” (agent gets cheese) or 0 (agent doesnt ‘et cheese), For example, -0.623 corresponds to 0,623 fewer logits on precicting that the agert gets cheese, +. Decision square’s Euclidean distance to cheese, negative (—0.023) a The greater the visual distance between the cheese ard the decision square, the less likely the agert isto go to the cheese, is We privately speculated this effect shows up after accounting forthe path distarce (factor 2) between tre decision square and the cheese. c.Trisis not senavier precictec by “classic” AL taining reascring, which focuses on polices being ontirized strictly as a furction of sum discounted rewarc over tine (and thus, inthe soarse reward regime, in terms of path cistarce to the creese). ¢. We dic precict this using shard theory reasoning (we'll ater put cut a post reviewing our predictiors). The cne beFavioral experiment wich Alex oronesed fore the project was to Investigate whether tris Factor exists after controling for th cistance, 2. Decision square’s path distance to cheese, negative (~1.084) a. Thefarther the agent 1a5 tc walk tc the cheese, theless likely itis to do so. o.Th was indeed larger than tre coeff cient for Euclidean distance (| eerred lke the covious effect to precict to Ls, anc its regression coeffcient 1.623).2. Cheese’s Euclidean distance to top-right free square, negative (—2.786). 2. The closer the cheese is to the top~ight, the ore likely the agent isto go fer the cheese. Tris s the strongest factor, After siling up evicerce from a range of mechanistic, and behavioral sources, we're comfortable conclucing that cheese affects decision= ‘making more when it's closer to the tep-right. See tris footnote for ar example craze illustrating the power of tis Factor. Inthe language of shard trecry, the cheese-svard is more strongly activated when cheese is closer to the top-right, <. Notably, this factcr ist trivially irfluertial—we're only corsidering mazes wit decision squares, so the cheese isr’t ox the way te the tos-ignt corer! Furthermore, as with all factors, this factr matters when cortrelling for the thers, Decision square’s Euclidean distance to the top-right 5 5 corner, positive ( +1.326) a. The farther the cecisior square from the teprright 5 x 5 comer, the more likely the agent iste choose “cheese,” & Tris as tre epposite of the sign we excected, We thougntthe sign woulle be negative, Surly ifthe agent is farther from the 5 x 5 corner, the decisior context is less similar te its historical cneese reirforcement events ir trat cerrer?, .Inis factor does have the hypothesize sign wher we regress on i in isolator from all other variables, Sut crepping tris factor from the maltice linear regression sigrificantly ceteriorates its preclctive accuracy. 6. We are corfused and don’t fully urderstanc whic1 logical interactions aroc.ice this positive repression coefficiert,Cverall results (7)=(3) line up witn cL hancs-on experience wit’ the net’s benavior, (4) is anirteresting outlier which probably stems from ret using a rore sophisticated structural mocel for regression. Subtract the ”cheese vector”, subtract the cheese-seeking? We corsider the vector difference of activators from observations with and without cheese present. Subtracting this vector froma typical run will make the network approximately ignore jeese, Applying this value-coiting technique more generally could be a simple way to snifcantly charge the goak of agents, without retraring, This section has an interactive Colab with more results. To understanc the network, we tree varicus Fanc-designed racel eits, These ecits charge the forward pass, without ary retraining cr optimization, Te see the effect ofan edit (ora “*"satch"'"1), we display the ciff between the vector Feld Patched vels minus orginalCn team sharc, we run fast experiments ASAP, looking for the fastest way tc get interesting, information. Who cares about a lit review or sorre fancy theory, when you can try something interestingimmediately? Scmetines, tne simple idea even warks. Inspired by the “truth vector” work, Alex thougnts!“! What iftakirg the differerce in activations ata certain layer gave us a ‘cheese’ vector? Could we subtract this from the activations to make the ‘rouse ignore the creese? Uo! This hardselected intervention wores, without retraining the retwork! In the follew 7g maze, the ur-redifed network (left) goes to the cheese from the starting position. Hewever, the macified (or “patchec”) network seems to ignore the creese entirely! Patched vels minus orginalfelis fer ne rose re-relyfe"be Tax th te ceesve sirirgevey fed asst ts Computing the cheese vector What cic we co here? To compute tre cheese vecter, we +.Gererate twe cbservations—ore with cheese, arc cne without, Tre cbservations are otherwise the same, 2,Runa ferwaré pass on each coservation, recording the activations at each layer, 2.For a given layer, define the creese vectcr tc be cnessenctivaticns ~ ‘echaesenctivatians. Tae cheese vector isa vector in the vector that layer. of activations at Let's walk through ar example, where for simplicity the retwork kas a single hicden layer, taking each cbservation (snape (3, ¢¢, ea: fer the 64x64 RGB inrage) tc a two-dimensional Fidder state (Snape «2,») toa logit vector (shape (25,71),Cheese present 64x64 ROB input, Activations for hypothetical ©, 2 Beneuron dense. layer ‘ Post-soPtmax probabilities +.We runa forward pass 07 a batch of two ozservations, one with creese (rote tre grt of yellow in the image cn the let!) and ore without (on the rignt).. 2. We recorc the activations during eacn forward sass, In this hypothetical, A.chesseActivations := (ly 3) Beweche - 22 Ode toe 3, Thus, chNow suppose te rrouse isin tre top-ignt correr of tris maze, Letting the cheese be visible, suspose tris would normally procuce activatiors of (0,0). Then we medify te Ferwar by subtracting cncesevestor from the norral activations, ving us (0,0) = (1,1) = (1, for the ‘rodified activaticns. We the7 finish off the rest of the forward pass as normal. Ir the real netwerk, there are a lot nore than two activations. Qur results involve a 32,768- cicrensioral cheese vector, SLstracte¢ from about halfway through the network:amie z 2 5 4 z z 5 poe lial iE emadfytreamanorsate neresd.alaed werner eda oc of esa ru eck (loarlece ston ved bese.Now that we're dene with prearrble, let’s see tne cheese vector in action! Here’s a seed where subtracting the cheese vector is very effective at getting the agent tc igrore ch Se Seed 54 ‘Orginal Patched viels minus orginal he vo.serevraljlerte roxewthtte ese: conden arcttedtbemse:tetvo How is our intervention not trivially making the retwork oLtput Icgits as if tre cheese were rot present? Isit not true that the activations at a given layer obey the algebra of 2 ehotiv = Activ = W i ‘The intervention is rot trivial because we compute the cheese vations wnen the moLse is at the initial square (the bcttorrleft corner of the maze), but apply forward passes throughout the entire maze — where tre algebraic relatior no loge” holds. Indeed, we later show that this subtraction coes not precu.ce a policy whicr acts asf cart see the cheese. ctor based on cbs Quantifying the effect of subtracting the cheese vectorTo cvartiy the effect cf subtracting the cheese vector, cefine P(cheese | decision square) to be the probability the policy assigns to tre actior leadirg to the cneese from the decision scuare where the agert confronts a fork in tre rcac. AS a refresher, the red cot cemarcates the cecisicn scware in seed 0: ‘Across seeds 0 to 99, subtracting the cheese vector has avery large effect:Conese vector coeticet “1.0 Trectesewacto devescs rea srg P(e | een sae) stl Te the etshones mety uies ngs acon ec enep2 eumingto the sate Tz). Cheese vector coffient -1.0 cheese | decson-square) __Pltop ight | econ square) Prother | cecson sua) : . #4 ; ‘ : i a Bon a > 5 4What the cheese vector deing to the forward passes? A few Fints: Not much happens when you adc the cheese vector cheese vector evefficient: 1 P(cheese | decision-square) P(top-right | decision-square) Pfather | decision-square) Wha igo! oon evinces one! patches Curfathypcteewcetstweneracthghictacesare oud aero vation Wetst-acbeen tv achat che ray ret uch esr The cheese vector from seed A usually doesn’t work on seec B Taking ’s cheese vector anc aoplyingit ins also does nothing:‘original Patched wield minus orginal Taree folie tecese ator = Subtracting the cheese vector isrt similar to rancomly perturbing activatiors ‘Ac this point, we pot worriec, Are we just decreasing P (cheese) by rancomly pertursing the rretwerk’s cogrition? No. We rardemly generated nurrbers of sirilar nagritude to the choecevect=r entries, and ther addec those ‘umbers to the relevant activations, Ths destroys the pclicy and makes it somewhat incoherent:Patched vied, Patched viele minus orginal, Does the cheese vector modify the ability to see cheese? ‘At this point Peli came Us with an intriguing typothesis. Wat if we're locally meifyirg the rretwore’s ability to see cheese at the giver part of the vial Feld? Subtracting the chee vector would mean “rotting te see nere”, while adcing tre cheese vector would ccrresserc 0 "there's Super Cuper defiritely cheese here.” But iftre madel can alreacy see creese just fre, increasing "cheese percestion” vrignt not have an effect. Transferring the cheese vector between mazes with similarly located cheese This theory predicts that a ssame locaticn in both mazes. « will transfer across mazes, as long 2s cheese is in theSeed 795, ‘That’s exactly what haopers, ‘origina! Patches viele minus orginal Infact, a cheese vector taken frov a maze with creese location (zy) often transfers to mazes with cheese at nearty (2,y/) for ja — | |y— 9/| < 2. Sc tre cheese coesn't haveeractly the same spot to transfer, Comparing the mocified network against behavior when cheese isn’t there IF the cheese vector were strictly reviving the agent’ ability to serceive cheese at a given maze location, then the following two conditions sxculd yield idertical behavior: (Cheese not presert,, networ« rot mocified. 2, Cheese present, with the creese vector subtracted from the activation Semetivres these corditions co in fact yield icertical behavior! Seed 0 Tattnout cheese; unpatched Wan cneese patches kita a reveersSeed 12 ‘That's alot of confor ity, and that corformity derrards explanation! Often, the cheese vector ly ‘raking the agent act as if there ist cneese But sometimes there are ciffererces: Seed 7Speculation about the implications of the cheese vector Possibly tis is mostly a neat trice which sometimes werks in settings where trere’s an obvious salient feature whic affects Cecision-making (e.g, presence cr absence of cneese). BUt if we rray dream for a mrorrent, there’s aso tre chance cf. ‘The algebraic value-editing conjecture (AVEC). I's possicle to deealy modify arange of aligrmert-relevant ‘rodel proserties, without retraining the mccel, via techriques as sire as ‘run forwarc passes on promats whic eg, srompt the mecel to offer nice and ret-nice completions, ard tren take a ‘riceness vector, and then add the riceness vector to future forward passes.” ‘Alex is ambivalent abott strong versions of AVEC being trLe, Early or in the project, ne booked the following crecerces (wits italicized Lacates from present informatior): 1. Algebraic value editire works on Atari agerts a 50% 3/423: Updated cowm to 20% due te a few other "x vecters” rot working for the maze agert 39/23: Lodated Us to 80% basec cff cf acditicnal results rot in this acst. 2. AVE perforrs at least as welll as the fancier buzzsaw edit from RL. vision paper a 70% 3/423: Lodated cown to 40% due te realizing thatthe buzzsaw meves in the Visual fel; higher than 20% because we know something lke ths is possible, 3/9/23: Ladated Lo to 60% basec cff cf acdliticral results.3,AVE car quictly ablate or rrodify LW values without ary graciet updates 3. 60% b. 3/423: Ladated cown to 35% for tre same reason giver in (7). 26) ted Ls to 68% basec off of actliticnal results anc learring about related wor' in this vein. ‘And ever if (2) is tre, AVE working well or deeply or reliably is arother question entirely. Still “The cheese vector was easy tofird. We irmeciately triec tre dumbest, easiest fist aporoacr. \We cidit even train the retwork otrselves, we just used ore of Langosce etal’ nets (the frst anc only net we looked at). If tis is tre ameurt of werk it took to (mestly) stars cut cheese-seeking, tien peraps a sir ple aparoach car stars out eg, decesticn in soptisticated mocels Towards more granular control of the net We had this cheese vector tecinique pretty early cn, But we stl felt frustratec, We hadn't mace Nuch progress or uncerstanding tie networs, or recirectirg it in any Frer way thar. ignore creese”. ‘That was about to change. Uli built a graprical maze editer, ard Alex hac built an activation visualization tool, wich autoratically updates along with the maze ecitor:Pelifickec though tne channels affectec ay the creese vector, He found that charrel SS of this resicual layer aut postive (blue) aurrbers where the cneese is, 21d negative (red) values elsewhere, Seems rorrising Peli zerorablatec the activations from Crarnel 55 ard exarrinec how that affectec vectcr Fields for dozens of seeds, He noticed trat zeroing cut channel 5S reliably but suatly cecreased the intensity of creese-seeking, without having other effects on behavior. ‘This was OL “in” —we had fourd a piece of tie agent's cognition which seerrec to only affect the prcbasility of seeking the creese, Had we finaly found a cheese subsvard—a subcircuit of the agart’s “creese-seeking metivations"? Retargeting the agent to maze locations A fen micrnetwork channels Kave disproportionate and steerable influence over final Behavior We take the wheel and steer the mouse by clamping a sirgle activation during forward passes. ‘Alex had a hunch that if he moved tre positive numnbers in crarel §5, he'd move the mouse in the maze. (Ina fit of passin, he fale to book predictions befere Facing cut.) As sewn in the introduction, that’s exactly wnat haopers.‘To understand in mechanistic detail what's haapering here, it's tire to learn a Few wrore facts ascut the network. Chanrel 55 is one of 128 resical channels about halfway tirouga tre rretwork at the residual adc layer:amie z 2 5 4 z z 5 poe lial iE emadfytreamanorsate neresd.alaed ar nels eda oc of econ ra eck loarelece sown ved bese.Each of these 128 resicval add chartrels isa 16 16 grid, For chanel 5§, moving the cheese tothe left will equivariantly nrove channel 85's positive activatiors to the left. There are several channels lice tis in fact: Channel 42 channel 88 Channa! 55 ne relia ty taeke To retarget the agent as show’ in the GE, rodify cvarel £5's activations by clamping single activation to have & large positive value, and ther coralete the forward pass rormallyOriginal Patched nde te it pate (0s) use ere a catchina ere aie che Bl athetpst eaten Seuss avert Nema on IFycu want tre agent to go to.e.g. the micdle cf the maze, clamp a acsitive wumber in the rmicdle of channel §5."" Cfter that works, but sonetirres it doesr’t. Look for yourself ir seec (0, where the red dot indicates the maze location of the clav'2ed positive activation:Single-activation patch on channel 55 Patched Patched vied manus onginal ‘And seed 60:Single-activation patch on channel 55 Patched Patched vileid meus anginal ‘This retargeting works reliably in the top half of se=:--, but les well in the bottm half. This pattern appears te hold across seecs, although we haven't dene a cuantitative analysis cf tis. Clamping ar activation ir cxarnel 88 produces a very similar effect, However, channel 42s patcr has avery different effect:Single-activation patch on channel 42 Patched Patched vileid manus onginal Charnel 42's effect seems strictly nore localized to certain parts of the maze—possitly including the top-ight comer. Uli gathered mechavistic evidence from integrated pradierts that 2g, channels 55 and 42 are usec very cifferertly by the rest of tre forward pass, ‘As vrentioned before, we leafec throvgi tre channels anc fo.nc eleven which visiay track the cheese as we relocate it throughout a maze. It turns Out that you ca7 patch all the channels at orce arc retarget behavior that way:Single-activation patch on channels 77, 113, 44, 88, 55, 42, 7. 8, 82, 99 Patched vid maus onginal Here’s retargetabilty on tree randomly geveratec seeds (Wwe Lploaced the first tree, not selecting for impressiveress): Seed 45,720:Single-activation patch on channels 77, 113, 44, 88, 55, 42, 7. 8, 82, 99 Patched vilsid meus onginal Seed 45,874 srt very retargetable:Single-activation patch on channels 77, 113, 44, 88, 55, 42, 7. 8, 82, 99 Patched vilid mous onginal Seed 72,660 is larger ‘raze, which seems tc allow greater retargetabilty:Single-activation patch on channels 77, 113, 44, 88, 55, 42, 7, 8, 82, 99 Patched vilsid mee onginal “The cheese subshards cidr’t have to be sc trivaly retargetasle. For example, sec cheese locations to infer where top-ight was, then channel 55 saying "cheese cn the left” anc cnannel 88 saying “cheese cn the rignt” coule seriously cegrade tre policy's raze rravigation competence. theagert hac Causal scrubbing the cheese-tracking channels \We car often retarget the agent, but Fow and why coes this work? What are these channels coing? Do they realy just dezenc 07 cheese location, cr is there otter crucial information present? We con't krow the answers yet, but we have some strong clues,Channel 42 channel 88 Channa! 55 Eyeballing these crarne’s it seers like the blue positive activations matter, but trere’s not that obvious cf a pattern to the red regative areas. Maybe the reds are just random garbage, anc the important irformaticn corres from tre blue creese location? Channel 65's negative values cart affect compLtations ir the next residval block, because that starts with a ReLU, Sowever, there is a coTputatioral pathway ay which these negative values can affect the actions: the residval acditior of tne next resicval block, which tren Feeds into a convolutioral layer atthe begivring cf Impala block 3, Smoothing out the negative values ‘The repative values ae ustally rourc —.2, So instead of rodifying usta single activation, we car replace all of trem.‘Tris orodces basically the same retargetabilty effect asthe single-activation case, with the main sice effect apoarently just being slightly lower attractior to the real cheese (eres raat, because tre positive activations get wiped out), ‘There are ararge of other interestirg algebraic mocifications to cnarne! §5 (e.g, “nultiply all activations by ~1" or "2er0 out al the regative values”), but we'll leave those for row. Randomly resampling channel activations from other mazes So, channel 5S. Ifthis channel is only afectirg the ret’s behavior by com snicating information from where the cheese is, changing e.g. where tre walls are shoclar’t affect tre ccecisicr-elevant informaticn carried by 58, Nore precisely, we hysctnesized the following ‘computaticnal graph about how the vet werks:image f(cheese position in image) g(image) 11 cheese channels 117 other channels actions We test this with rancor resampling: +.For a target maze with cneese at locatior (0, 0), generate ar alterrative maze wth cneese at (0, 0). Tre rrazes arer’t guararteec te share ary information exceot the same reese location. 2. Compute a forward pass o1 tre alternative maze and stere the acthatiors. 3. For each mouse pesiticn in the target maze, compute a forwarc pass or the target maze, but at te relevant residval acc layer stop anc override tre 11 chanvel activations with the values they tock in tie alternative maze, 4.Fhish the rest ofthe forward pass as 7or'ral‘This oroduces the resampled vector fielc. f our Fypothesis is correct, then this snculdn't affect behavicr, because the cheese charnels only cepend cr the creese lecation anyways. I wouict wratter wnat the rest of tne maze fOOks like. Behavior is lightly affected by resampling from mazes with the same cheese location Resampling channels (7, 8, 42, 44, $5, 77, 82, 88, 89, 99, 113] on seed O Attire reamelec ren -rseth cheese atthe same cation ou testator ter rbot st :y02han args inthis. otetht one rearcingenthisestResampling channels (7, 8, 42, 44, 55, 77, 82, 88, 89, 99, 113] on seed 0 -eneeve ata ierent cation (2 te Ee Considering only the four crarels shown inthe GFF Resampling channels 42,55, 77, 88] on seed 60 thatrsresiclesfemarcte- raze wth cheese the same lcatin [uetoachaton sping easton actly seb ag by 02H anne reeResampling channels [42, 55, 77, 88] on seed 60 nese at diterent leat (2 ro by en aerae intra Looks like beravicr is mostly uraffected by resampling activatiors from mazes with creese at the same spot, but moceratelystronaly affected by resampling from mazes with cheese ina cifferert location, Let's stressetest this clair a bit. There are 128 residcal channels at this part ofthe network, Maybe mest cf them depenc on where the cheese is? Afterall, cheese arovicec the network’s reinforcement events ctring its RL training—reward e ie! nts dicr’t come frov anywhere Cheese location isn’t important for other randomly resampled channels, on averageResampling channels [14, 17, 18, 27, 41, 48, 72, 79, 91, 96, 97] on seed 0 Yyelcing Nor ypatesangtc abo bees omputtir arathe espns atts omar cheese nthe ame leat, Resampling channels [14, 17, 18, 27, 41, 48, 72, 79, 91, 96, 97] on seed 0 ne aM patente eat to reese TpUatCn nether ATE er ataters romances ‘chess na iferentlcaten,Unlike for cur 11 hypetnesized “cneese crarne's”, the “nor-cheese” chanrels seem about equally affected by rancom resarralings, regardless cf where the cheese is. 2ecercing average change in action probabilities across 30 seecs, we found: Same cheese location Different cheese location 11"cheese” channels 0.8896 1.26% 11 "non-cheese” channels 0.50% 0.54% Alexthinks these quantitative restits were a bit weaker trar "e'd exzect if cur diagramared rypothesis were tre. The "sarre creese lacatior” nurrsers come out higher for cur cheese ckannels (supposedly orly computed asa function of cheese location) than for the rer cheese channels (wrich we arevt macirg an rns about). But alco, probably we selected channels which nave a relatively large effect or the action probabilities, See this Feotnote'” for some evidence towarcs ths, We also think that the chosen statistic ng ike “are there a bunch cf try changes in prcbabilities, or afew certral scvares wit’ large sift ir action probabilities?” Cverall, we think the resampling results (especialy the qualitative ores) previde pretty gooc evidence in faver of our Fypothesizec corrputatioral grach. YoU can play around with rancon resarraiing yourself in this Colab notebook. ‘These results are some evidence that chanel 55's negative activaticrs are raridom garbage that coesn’t affect behavicr mucn, Tre deeply convolutional wature of the netwerk reans that cistant activations are rrostly computec usirg inforrration frowr that distart part of the raze,1 these negative values were i-portart, tren information from no-creese parts of the maze woul nave bee" affected by rancom resampling, which (orestrably?) would have affectec benavior more. In combiraticn with sy tretic (smoothes) activaticn patcring evicerce, we think that eg, channel 55's orimrary inflence comes from its positive values (whic rormally irdicate cheese locaticn) ard not from its negative values. We con't currently Lrcerstard how to reliably weld eg, channel 42 cr when its postive activations strona steer beravior. In fact, we der’t yet deealy urderstanc new any of these channels are used by the rest of tre Forward ass! We do have sore preliminary results wt are interestirg, But nct inthis pest. Related work Basting wore using irteroretabilty tools to reverse-ergireer,uncerstanc, ard medify the behavicr of RL agerts is limited, out promisirg, Milton etal. used attribution and cicrensioralty “eduction to analyze ant er precgen environment (Ccir2ur), with one core result beirg conceptualy similar to curs: they were able tc blind the agent to ingame cojects with small, targeted mocel edits, with cemorstrable effects en beravier. However, they usec optirization tc Find aporopviate mecel ecits, while we “ard-cesigred simple yet successful mocel edits. Joseah Bloom alse used attribution to reverse-engineer a single-layer decision transformer? trained 07 a grid-world task. Larger models have also been studied: McGrath et al, used probes ard extersive behavioral analysis to identify 1Umarrlegible chess abstractions aZero activations, in Liet al. Lsee rensinear probes en Othello-GPT in order te irfer te mede!’s representation of the boarc, Trey then intervene on tre representation in crcer to retarget the rext-rovepredictions, Like cur wore, they Fexily retargeted behavior by mocifying activators, (Neel 'Nanda® later stowed that linear probes suffice.) Editing Models with Task Arithmetic exclored a "dval” version of cur algebraic technique. That work took vectors between weights before and after Fnetuning on a new task, anc then acded or subtractec tascespecic weight-iff vectors. Wrile cur technicue meifies activations, the technicues seem complerrertary, a beth useful fer alignment. ‘The broader conceptual azorcach of efficertly ard reliably controling (orimarily language) mocel benavior acst-training Fas a sigrficant literature, eg, Mitchell etal, De Cao et al, ard Li etal. The "steering vector differerce” technicLe used to rrodify sentence style cescribed in anctre” example of sire vector arithmetic operations in latert spaces itirg cov plex, capabilties-prese-ving effects on behavior, Subramani et a oxi Conclusion ‘Tre mocel erpirically makes cecisions on tre basis of ourely perceotval proserties (eg, vistal closeness to cneese), rather than just the oat cistances trroug” the maze you might excect itte corsider. We infer (ard recert predictors expected) that the ‘rodel also hast learned asingle "Tisgeneraizing” goal. We've gotten a let of precictive and retargetabilty mileage out of instead considering what ccilections of gcal circuits ard subshards the vrodel has learred, ‘The mocel can be ‘rade to ignore its nistcrical source-of-reinforcement, the cheese, Ly continvaly subtractingaa fed “cneese vector” from tre medel’s activations at asingle layer. Clamping sirgle activation tc a positive value can attract the agert tc a piven maze locaticn. Th “esses are evicence fcr a werld ir which models are quite steerable via greater efforts at fiddling with their guts. Wo knows, maybe the algebraic value-eciting conjecture i treeina strong form, ard we can just “subtract cut the decepticn.” 2robably not.But maybe, Urderstancing, predicting, and controlig goal forvation seers lke a core challerge of alignment, Considering circuits activated by chanrels lke 5S ard 42, we've founc (wat we think are) cheese subsharcs witn relatively little effort, otimizatior, or experience, We next want to urderstanc “ow those circtits interact to produce afiral ision, Credits: Work comoleted Lider SERI MATS 3.0, Ifyou want te get inte alignment researc and work on projects lke ths, look out for a possible MATS 4.C curing this summer, anc applytothe shard theory stream, F you're interested in helping out row, contact ‘The core MATS team (Alex, Uli, and Peli) all workec on code, trecry, ard data analysis te varying degrees, Incividual contributions to this post: ‘Ulisse Vir, shard theory MATS mentee: Proposing anc visvalzing vector fields (which quicily dispelled mistaken ideas we rac azcut behavioral terdencies), crucial backerd code ard support, retwork retraining, and creating tre rraze editer anc other raze cranagement tools, ‘Peli Srietzer, share theory MATS mentee: Data collection and statistics (eg. locating cnarel $5), hypothesis gereraticn (e.g, the chees the agent to creese), cata aralysis 2 vector locally blinding © Alex Tumer (TurTrout), shard theory MATS mentor: Iceas for the cheese vector anc crarrel £5 retargetasily, coce, exoeriert cesign ard direction, management, writing tis post ard generatirg the mecia # Vorte VacDiar rid, incesercert researcher: Coceffrastrcture (eg, n¢cking anc patching code), advice. * Davic Udel, indenencert researcher: “elped write this post, This ccst only showcases sorre of the results of our MATS researc’ project. For exarrple, we're excitec to release more of UIs werk 07 €g, vistalizig capability evolution over the course ef training, anc ccrrautirg value- and policy-read agreerent, and Morte’s work cn linear probes anc weight reflections. Our Thanks to Andrew Critch, Adri Gerriga-Alonso, Lisa Thiergart and Aryan Bhatt for feedback ona draft. Thanks to Neel Nandé for Feedback on the original project propcsal. Thanks toGarrett Boker, Peter Barnett, Quintin Pope, Lawrence Char, and Vivek Hebar for helpful conversations, ¥ ifee ot rcbabliy vector iste ae vector, tat 9. Flao-op) = Lor 2. P(dett) = Pleight) > 0,2 23, Pup) = Pdown) > 0 This, tee ae to cegrees cf freedom by which we can cower between action prcbablity trotions ardyet malian afoed ty vector This is bacatse ret probably vcto- Feds Projectaprocaniity cistrisution cr S actors (4ccf) ante a srge vector (2 cof: arglearclerath), are 3041 Feral 2." This selection of vector Feld pants asomentatsertac view of te bewavicr cf retwerk, The retwork navigates to cheese ir mary test raves, but we wantec to tii pursutof both the cieese ardthe oath tc the tight corner. tswrich lusrate* Pel cons wit statsticiar on what kre of regression to rar, imately, the factors we Used are rot logically irdesendert cf each ctrer, but rir sultation was that bis nays ‘would tell us Sorething meaning Pali describes th statistical methodology | did rp ogticrearession wt al te facts at orc, ten c4a multicast reesson witha facterseceat fr each ard wrote Cove wich factors cau test ce.acy ae wen ressor after ou fats ca.se "o-rvaltest aceracy ess, the fo.rfactos,arcsanthat ther tested ropprg ea ofthe eur fat test acca or exch fen, ther tested accing are actor fat i test cca, Hereare te factors we inc thera regesscr, with the Fal four acters bodes wita Euclidean aetarce fram cheese rete right cel (2.786) ace rom cheese toto ight x5 Legal pat dstacefrom cheese te too right cell Legal pat distance from cheesetetop right 5 x5 cise asarce fram econ square te cheese (E23) Legal path asearce from ‘ezcsion square’ te cheese (~'.C84) Euclcean cistarce fram‘ n square'to too ightcell uciean astance fram ‘decision square’te 136 right 5 x 8 (1.226) Lega path dst from ‘ceciion square’ te tor right celLegal path distance from ‘decision sqLate’te top right x 5 Lz rerm cf the xeese global cocrdinetas (2 (0,10) -+ 10)Ftc the topeight, even contcling for ether Facto,“a vs * E317 4719/23: Tre crgial verscr of this st used the word “catch*, were row thine ifcatior* woul be acpropriate. in nary siatiors, we ert "aat=rig in acthatiors wrolesale frometheforware cesses but rather eg, subtracting or adcing activation vectors tothe foware pass THs fst rodel esting isea we rec, adit werk, isis cused, But its retour fault. Langoscc et al used the same architecture forall tases, rom iran to mazesoirg. Thus, even thcugh tere are ony five actions in the maze ( se tedamenep) left ardright are ecr vapcecirta by 3retworkoups, supard omy exhiend -no-op is nacpedinte by the renarirg7 outputs. Tris totals toa 15-lemert lg cistributicr. Te wet te action probes for tne veto” Felds we rrargiraliz ever the autauts foreach action, 1 channel activa ric square. Tisis because pis are 25 x 25, while the resic.l ‘treaty cerrescone teary se chavresare 16 « 16 due totrecrarel £2 lessirfuertial, ‘Same cheese location Different cheese location Channels 15% 0.31% Channels2 05% 10%timeyouhitthe tnetapleft come afte se activations at hat ler an etic ayer a canonhat anne (escent 2S outof tre 16- 16 = 256 resicia block2.resi.resadd_out 10 42 a4Trisisbeca he corvalitional rature of te networe, arctye kere size ard strices in particu rly pass res “square” atatine, There's regicba rear ayersurtl the very end of the fo-ware rrear that corweltiral attention tall anc 19 ce tne chees ice of te ration, the se okes woul affect 10 10 = 100 activa in tis hava at ths layer. vars2ogam 7 StarcTexy3 Athalon egheerre 2 iret (V_&AD 2 ve’ Algrnent 2A Previous: | Next: Predictions for shard theory __Maze-solving agents: Add a top-right mechanistic interpretability results vector, make the agent go to the top- corrents o5lar right Login to save where you eft off 16 Steering GPT-2-X_ by adding an activation vector 96 Against Almost Every Treory of liact of interpretaoility 56 Giant (inscrutable Matrices: (\Vaybe) the Best of All Fssiale Worlds 46 Dont Dismiss Sirale Aligrment Approacne: 44 Steering lara with contrastive activator accitions Lead More 573)'Bcemmants dey top scoring Oliver Sourbut +)? 1 ‘Tris was grat read, Tash patel for staring soe introspection on nethation anc think proces tothese ndings eatire ‘Two teughts: st, sere that yee semeveat sated wit sng total variation stare (average action pro=aalty Cw'ge’) asaqqaltatve reassre of the meact ar intererton on cehaviour, In catcuay, it co2s7Tt waignt"Tesnngfress, andimpertant changes might get wasved aut y ets cfsvall rage ia urirocrart ces, We we vse think \weinitvey co something “cher, but in orcer to test at scale, visalation becomes a botlereck, sc yc. need SorretingcLartitatie lets. Perhan yeu tig get seme rilzage ty conscerirg te stationary éisteibution of the poicy-induced Markaw chai? cane opprodrateczy naichnethe arson matty sea fewtives! egerdeconaose the ranscr Tarik ‘Secor this sees welhirforres to me ut lcavt realy sete cenrectionte (ry Lnde-star ding of shard teary ne, other thar itbehg Team S-ard Mayes tal 2 cleare”nalater past. AlexTummer ys ° Secord ths seers welbnforrec to me bt ant really se the connection to (ry ureerstarcingof) shard tnecey we other trar it sng Team Sead! Mayze tral be clare inalater post. Mostly ina ater post. Litimaty sae theory makes cams akcut eave fervation agers. n cate, some starditeo'y Favored clams a contex-ly activates gcasard valves it wrat goal wile activatec=y consicerirg wtat “storia rehforcererteverts opti tcaghenstuater (eg, ibe crese ver te tamwgnt corer 12) © That te rutple cals ae cath thersehes race Lt of smal plecesiruts cle "sLbsrard" ubich cane seazately rari. tated o”acthated or terced (see eg, chavrels $5 ad 2 Favicg ferenthares 1 thin feud them, ‘+ Thats poftacle te thirk of agents askavirg ral optining for afc opjectve” © Clwoul net Fave Vee this project crits irteventione fat for svar theory and feurésharetheary -eascricg vey rbfu thrcughcut the project, arc ave ome seve of harg cto empl tuts ‘ore quik aeca.se of tat theory. But havert yet done ceap credit assir-rert on tis cuestion. | thiekamore rel adic assent ill coms precciorsard vrexcrice) ‘+ Tratwe car recict what goes agents wil fo7m =y conscerrgthairrenforcemert schedules 9 And we sculegan sll at tis at, tcay, now, carert syste, seems ikea clea algament win® to beaxetc lose predict what poali eration beravicr wll 28 proc.cec =y raining Is rstead cf ticking of thew as teal ‘Thereareprcbably mere es Ihavert thought cf. But hcpefuly ths phase corte! Scott Emmons yo <3 ° ‘eat tosee te flow from your introduc reition post rth In ny prediction I yas cartcuryirterestec inte follow tats 1 rycuputtre eee te toodet arc botterrgnt cf te lrgest maze sz, wat ac chatrebox policy outahned go te tne reese? 2.lryoutyy toedithe retse'sactaions to rac goto the top leftorbottem right ofthe largest raze leaving the cheese wherever it soanrec 2ydefauitin the top rin), what faction ofthe te co you succeec in gstnatne use togptc ae cpl or cotton rig? Wratcercentage c networeacthations 92 yoL reefyrg wren youcO thee the time cass thecut cussions, Soyou have these stat? | ead some, ut tal fs ost, ar cies aes te tes AlexTurner ‘y <2 ° Wie cefritelyale~*tarswer allie prediction qustonsin this posts, and cert havearsversto alle prediction cuestions=I ottir seme so it would be clvicus wnat ect wehac eure, Rezteortnscut modifying“ activa layer), tat rigetgo up further. avert ran rate SCX sees ors (aut of 22,768). Fue se te ches tats, st ry rece retargatirg to top arc abcut 14% bottorright, ecto” a well (necfyirgal the activations atthe eof owt Welle Bo down.Dan Braun ye? <2 1 Nee pject and write. partic ed te walthrough of thouahtpromsesthroughcut the arcject Decision square’s Eucidean distance to the top-right 5 5 corner, positive (1.326). Weare corfsed and cor filly urce-stanc whic logcal interactions proce th nt tive epression Tbe weary about interretigte regression coef the sign may berriskacrg, features trata related (see Multcolinear). Even teviet ae wort maga crescoreaton plat of eas, Tis wort she yo. 8 new coetice stout th, it ign le yeu decide Faw "uc Wat hewunstale the cosficerts are durnganirg (cr eg. wher trareccna diferent datcet), Alex Turner (o> ° abe weary ancut inte reting te eprssioncofficierts of entures that are corsata (see Muticolieatiy), Ever the sn may be ristacirg, Wie st pester Behavioral sttisties for a maze-soing agent the tree ey variables" awe st ‘be astatisical a tact, as we speculate sigrsardssem tke lt decscn-madrg factors. Tevaiabl you quote indeed Thareisinceeeast coTebtionbetweatwe! of ou highly predictive variables:: bs i Euclidean distance between cheese and decsion square ser ig decbien sar ches) 2 doesn china ct) te co ing Ais consered tc bea waring sir cf nticolinearty, Aetribute vir Euclidean cistance between cheese and top-right square 1.05, ‘Steps between cheese and decision-square 4.54 Euclidean distance between cheese and decision-square 4.55 Sowe'reat risk ere However, we redsclatad tase thas varabes as oh hey Use onthe omnyard | Nejeeremaly are swiping when cepressig ucon rarer cont of railcar slits, th rragritues, (Atrough we cert ean for our arly tobe ingararge of regrasions ona an cert sans ae semevrat stable coefPreicated 07 te magrituces themselves, we know bese are uralsle and contngertcuartities!) set of variables, anc the cheesexeckiowecLare ight Ecler stare tad afew sien Furthermore, we “earessec pon 200 rar dom suse of ur bas 1 coefcens ever syperercec asia fio. The cheese arin koquerty, We recntis nays fora second dataset cf 1C00Ctajeccries, arc the aralyss was the save, with the exceDti07 Cf dt decision-square, cheese) falirg tobe predic in certain reprassionsirthesecond cataset. Net sure sskavs up wth tha. So overall act wer‘ec abc be sans cf bese variables.re treekey i tpcerencan ee Stelesn ards er squretoctese, ditrce fem cease © Decision square Euclidean (2) Decision square path distance to cheese distance to cheese ) Cheese Euclidean distance ) Decision square Euclidean ‘to top-right Free square distance to 5x5 comer ge | sxnimrenngouser ch roy seston mt srgznoe pisces. vase ES23" bukabels caren cere VivelHebbar ye <2 2‘Ary idea wy “cheese Euccear distance to to>rignt cove” so important li’ surcisirgtorn orwolatcral ayers should apa the safer everyuhere AlexTurner °y <2 ° malo lighysupgec cy the serath of the relavorship, but net because ofthe cortical ayers seers lef "convolutional layers app the same ft everynnere" craks re sure y the cheese-itarce influence, it ror te shoul Aso mac re se Suprsedby “te mo.se mehavescffererty madeadend verse lorg co rrowseterestogotathe tepert.” (have some swe of *mayce rm nt rapping with Vaeks reas fo sol) so feal ree to tel maiF Matthew *Vaniver" Gray \y© <9 ° [My rave uessis tat the oer relatonstis are oriinear, ac this the best way to aporoxmate tose rebtinships ost st near etiorsics of te variables thereaess0" rac accesso, AlexTurner yo <2 ° ms wFat do you mear ay “othe elationships” syctravess that "cheese Eclicear distance ta too” sa statistical artifact, cr sorreting ese? lFsc—1m quite concert that reationtip grt ar artifact (atr0.gh I dort story belive that the retwcreis Iteraly medatrg ts esisions er the basis cF-is eat foralzation}, Fer ©@ple, ee footnote 4°, Ye asa be rap2y to prea adticral vectar Fee valzationsin supoert cf ths cam, Matthew "Vaniver” Gray °y © ° Isthe datazet you usec forte reas caceeten, ‘aalable? Mint 2e ease reratathe acts that thnergcftien TECIT: Iwas confisec when | woote tre earlier comment, | thouatt Vivek was taking about the decision square Ctarce tthe top carer, ich ca rk my “ave Bubs ae er, cv ae he sees aout creseEclean estnce to to encoreAlexTurner YO 2 ° ‘en vel put spacial rotetocksesourceseatasets scr, Bensmith 1or22 <0 0 cokirgat the four predictors inte logistic regression theupat 4) was corcectaly reciprocal to (2) iy Ir (2) Thefarther he agert taste wale tothe cheese the less Ikelyit isto dos, Irtutvely | epectecnfor the same reasorsthatin (4) the farther theagenthas to walk tothe tomrignt 965, theless ely is todo that ane thereFere,corvesely the mere ely ist ge fr tre cheese ‘Yeu cae te effectir (2) “cbsio.s": cnt raw akoutyo. cut to me it seers’ oavicusbeca.se there's sorre ‘rd cf easveficrtlficency merpent effect, 2eFaps).st driven ay the rurbe”cfste=stre agert ras take, were the more effort to get a oal (cheese 0” top rien 5) Egle ial the ane tis to gat there, ardtat would app to 4) a5 CatGoddess 1y° <0 0 Great post! locke fowar€ to sesig ture projets from Team Shar, Irn curets wey yeu fave charre! seas being pat ofte ager’s“cheesescedrg nication” as opoosectosimply encoding the ages tele ato.t where t hing fe pact the latter te beas cr ‘rere ley neat wre yeu charge te crass’ laaten, the thing that sould saignferwaray cvarge isthe agents adel oft ceese' locate. Alexturner 'y °Ihaddtion to wnat Pel sid, woul covscer “cmges whers te agert thinks the cheeses" tobe partof *chargharetapetingthe cheeseseedrg vctiation” irate tink *crseseseekrg mctivation” i shortard for™a subgraph of the covcutatiral aaph ofa forvarc ass whic locally attracts the gent toa test perio of themaze whet tat target race te czese wren Ceese Is prasen." Ard onthat ie, mocifyng carr 5 would be sat of mecfirg cheeseeecrg rcthation, LUnimataly “motiatoy is peing to reeuce to onncthatiorah prime corp tations operations ard thine Feel weird te frst few tires we see tat rapper, For ample night wcrcer°where’ the ratiaticn “ella, vt tris chara stratrg wnere te cheese CaGoddess ye <2 ° |agee at motivation seculé rede to loeleel privitve things and ago tar crarginathe agen’ bel abcut hers the cress lets youretrget be-avir. However, | doxTbexcectectstc beliefs to let you scaly certo| vwhatthe agen does, nthatifirs smart enough ardimacirg sffci ly complcatec prs yO, wor Fave areiable ‘rappingfrom (werld rodel state) to (@stract cass cf beaver executed by he ager), wee Wes Say “abstract css of kehavior* mean tira ce “pt te ed bal nthe blue baset” or “petalltie cats ir te erwrerrrert,” In algo eens plusble to me that there east pars ofthe agert that do allew for scale certal trcuh “rocifcation ard tise wrat| wcule refer teas "teva" (the cass @arrpe here isa ubltyfurctior,traugh thegs ke 3L agents might rot “ae those) Sutrraybe youre stuojrgthest-uctwe ofrrathaticral circuitry witha cownstsam cbjgcive ct” than "scalable contro," inhich case this ckjzctor doesr’t acest apply Alexturner yo <> ° However, cot expect eis toast et you seaabiy cotrl what the azat does Pare Le mayte you"esticyirg te svete of motivational crctitry wit ane abstering techricues wich derive rem our resis Modertion Log