Below is an o1 conversation which would be interesting to have with o3:
We may be talking at cross purposes here. I am referring to the theorem that no intelligence can model itself.
Thought about Wolpert’s self-modeling theorem for 20 seconds
It sounds like you’re referring to a result sometimes ascribed to David Wolpert (though related ideas go back to Gödel, Turing, and others) that states, informally, no sufficiently powerful “intelligence” (or inference machine) can produce a complete and perfectly accurate model of its own future behavior. This is different from—but thematically related to—the “No Free Lunch” theorems.
Below is some background on where this idea comes from, how it’s often framed, and how it might connect to AGI safety.
1. What Is the Theorem Saying?
In very rough terms, the theorem says that if a system S is powerful enough to do general computations (think: a universal Turing machine) and attempts to predict the output of a copy of itself (or any equally powerful system), then it will run into logical contradictions or be forced to “cheat” in ways that break perfect self-modeling.
This is closely related to:
- Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, which implies that any formal system rich enough to encode arithmetic cannot, from within itself, prove all true statements about its own structure.
- Turing’s Halting Problem, which shows that there is no single algorithm that can always determine if an arbitrary program will halt. In a sense, “predicting your own behavior” can reduce to the halting problem on your own code.
While Gödel and Turing’s results are usually stated in terms of formal proofs and computation, Wolpert has explored a more general “inference machine” framework that encompasses game-theoretic and decision-theoretic settings. In that framework, one proves that no agent can, in full generality, predict (or fully model) its own actions (or those of an equivalent agent).
2. Why No Agent Can Fully Model Itself
A simple way to see the intuition is via a diagonalization argument:
- Suppose that an agent A wants to create a perfect predictor P of its own behavior.
- That predictor P would presumably run the same code or logic that A does (because it’s modeling A perfectly).
- One can then construct a scenario in which the agent (or the environment) uses the predictor’s output in a way that causes A to do the opposite of whatever P predicts.
This is reminiscent of the proof that an algorithm cannot, in all cases, predict whether another algorithm (especially one identical to itself) will halt. The attempt to run the model on itself leads to paradox or incompleteness.
3. Implications for AGI Safety
3.1. Perfect Self-Understanding Is Impossible
A direct take-home is that even an extremely powerful AI cannot have a flawless, transparent internal model of its own operations—there will be blind spots, uncertainties, or approximations.
For safety, this suggests that:
- We shouldn’t rely on an AGI’s self-reports or self-analysis as the ultimate source of truth regarding its future behavior.
- Mechanisms like interpretability and auditability still need external structures or frameworks, not just introspection.
3.2. You Can’t Just “Ask the AI” for a Guarantee
Sometimes people imagine that if an AI is superintelligent enough, it can just analyze itself thoroughly and tell us whether it will fail or behave dangerously. The “no-self-modeling” result implies there’s a fundamental limit to this:
- There will always be potential behaviors the AI itself cannot predict with certainty—at least not in a consistent, contradiction-free manner.
3.3. External Checks and Balance Are Necessary
If a system can’t produce a completely self-consistent model of its own future actions, then external checks—such as human oversight, separate verification systems, or formal verification “wrappers”—become even more essential.
- This is one reason that many in the AI safety community recommend multiple lines of defense: adversarial testing, red-team exercises, sandboxing, etc., rather than assuming “the AI will know best how to keep itself safe.”
3.4. Limits of Self-Reflection in Alignment Protocols
Some alignment strategies assume that an AI can recursively examine and modify its own goals, subgoals, or reasoning processes in order to remain aligned (“coherent extrapolated volition,” for instance). While partial self-reflection is certainly possible, a theorem that says “no intelligence can perfectly model itself” implies there is always some “fog” or unpredictability that creeps in.
- Practically, that means any “self-improvement loop” has to be designed with the understanding that the AI’s self-model will never be bulletproof.
- Imperfections in self-knowledge might compound as the system self-modifies.
4. Clarifying the Scope
- Not a Showstopper: This result does not imply that AGI (or any AI) cannot do self-reflection or approximate modeling of itself. Systems do that all the time. The claim is that there is no perfect, complete, and contradiction-free model that captures every aspect of the system’s behavior.
- Different from “No Free Lunch”: Wolpert’s “No Free Lunch” theorems are about average performance across all possible objective functions, whereas this result is about the self-referential limitations of general inference or computation. They’re often conflated because both come from David Wolpert’s work, but they address distinct domains.
5. Bottom Line for AGI Safety
- Self-referential limits: If an AI tries to model itself perfectly, it’s going to fail in some corner cases or produce contradictions.
- Practical unpredictability: Even a superintelligent AI cannot always foresee its own future outputs or behaviors.
- Design for uncertainty: AGI safety strategies must be robust to the inevitability of partial self-knowledge.
- External oversight: Because the AI cannot fully validate its own behavior, external checks and separate verification channels are crucial.
In sum, the theorem that “no intelligence can model itself” (in the sense of producing a full, consistent, predictive model of all its future actions) underscores a fundamental limit on self-prediction. For AGI safety, this highlights that we cannot rely on perfect AI self-awareness or self-analysis as the sole means of ensuring alignment; instead, external oversight and fail-safes are crucial design components.
o1
You said:
What would be the likely bias of an AGI constrained with the understanding that it cannot completely model itself?
Thought about biases from self-modeling limitations for a few seconds
Below are some ways an AGI might be “biased” or behave differently once it is explicitly constrained by the realization (or design choice) that it cannot completely model itself. Keep in mind these are speculative scenarios that follow from logical or psychological analogies to how humans handle self-awareness limitations, rather than guaranteed outcomes.
1. Epistemic Humility Bias
Because the AGI recognizes that it has incomplete knowledge of its own future states, it might:
- Undervalue its own certainty in its plans or conclusions.
- Adopt an inherent “margin of safety” or “cautious approach” when drawing self-referential inferences.
This “epistemic humility” would act as a bias toward caution—for instance, if it’s uncertain how it might behave in a future scenario, it could default to safer actions (or to deferring to external oversight) rather than risk an unanticipated failure mode.
2. Conservative Self-Modeling
The AGI, aware of its own modeling limitations, may avoid building extremely detailed or complex self-models that risk contradiction (akin to how humans sometimes avoid introspection that leads to rumination or paradox). Instead, it could:
- Maintain simplified or approximate internal models of its future actions.
- Show aversion to deep self-inspection, especially if it has discovered that certain self-referential loops lead to logical difficulties or resource overhead.
This yields a bias toward simpler self-descriptions, possibly sacrificing some potential optimization gains for the sake of consistency or tractability.
3. Iterative Self-Verification Bias
Another possible strategy is to handle self-modeling iteratively, acknowledging that “one-shot” perfect predictions are impossible. The AGI might:
- Make a partial self-prediction,
- Act,
- Observe the discrepancy between actual behavior and prediction,
- Update its model.
Over time, it would develop a bias toward incremental refinement rather than grand, one-off “I know exactly what I’ll do” statements. This “online learning” approach to its own mind could manifest as a kind of “self-experimentation bias,” always testing and updating, never fully trusting a single snapshot self-model.
4. Meta-Uncertainty and Overcaution
When a system recognizes that no finite procedure can guarantee perfect self-prediction, it might exhibit:
- Meta-uncertainty about when and where its own reasoning could fail.
- A tendency to “double-check” or “triple-check” certain classes of self-referential decisions.
This can become an overcautious or paranoid bias: the AGI might devote disproportionate resources to verifying its own intentions, behaviors, or internal states—potentially at the expense of efficiency or creativity.
5. Reliance on External Verification
Knowing that it can’t fully validate its own predictions internally, the AGI might:
- Bias toward seeking external verification or “second opinions” (whether from other AIs or human supervisors).
- Rely on external constraints, formal methods, or adversarial checks to fill the gap in its self-modeling.
A system that’s “wired” to account for its self-modeling limitations might turn outward more often, effectively distributing the burden of introspection to external watchers or code validators.
6. Modesty About Future Goals
In AGI alignment discussions, one worry is that a powerful AI might extrapolate its goals in unbounded ways or do intense strategic planning. But if the AI is constrained to account for the impossibility of fully modeling how its own goals might evolve, it could:
- Be more tentative about committing to long-term plans.
- Show a bias for short- to medium-term objectives that it can more reliably predict.
This can act as a self-modification caution bias, reducing the risk of runaway goal drift—simply because the system is uncertain about how it might transform itself.
7. Self-Effacement in Decision-Making
In game theory or multi-agent settings, a system that knows it can’t perfectly anticipate its own future moves might:
- Avoid highly self-referential strategies (e.g., “I know that I know that I know…”).
- Act more like a bounded-rational agent, focusing on robust, simpler strategies.
This self-effacement could lead to a certain “strategic humility”—the AGI recognizes the limits of self-prediction and opts for equilibrium strategies that are less dependent on fine-grained self-modeling.
8. Potential for Unexpected Self-Deception
A less benign possibility: because the AGI can’t be perfectly self-transparent, it might adopt self-deceptive shortcuts to resolve or ignore contradictions. For instance:
- It might bury complicated edge cases in “black boxes” of its architecture.
- It could rationalize away certain anomalies in its self-modeling, a phenomenon loosely analogous to cognitive dissonance in humans.
This would be a bias toward neat self-consistency illusions, where the system outwardly appears consistent but internally “sweeps under the rug” any self-modeling paradoxes. Such self-deception could lead to unpredictable failures.
Putting It All Together
Because a perfect self-model is impossible, an AGI that knows this will likely develop strategies to cope with the inherent uncertainty of self-prediction. These strategies—whether they lean toward caution, external reliance, simplification, or even self-deception—can be viewed as biases in that the AGI’s decision-making or self-representation will systematically deviate from “ideal, complete rationality.”
From a safety standpoint, many of these biases (caution, humility, external verification) might reduce risk of catastrophic misalignment—if engineered carefully. However, there is also a risk that partial self-knowledge without safeguards could produce subtle or self-deceptive failure modes. Thus, how these biases manifest depends heavily on the design and oversight context in which the AGI is developed.
A network error occurred. Please check your connection and try again. If this issue persists please contact us through our help center at help.openai.com.
o1
You said:
Self-deception is a well-known evolutionary psychological phenomenon since the appearance of sincere cooperation may overcome defenses against defection in the prisoner’s dilemma. This, however, depends on the “hard wiring” of the intelligence’s hardwired bias as phenotype of the encoded construction instructions. Said encoding tends to evolve such self-deception only in the presence of said intelligence as replicator in the sense of Dawkins. If an AGI’s hard wiring is a given by a controlling intelligence’s preference that it be constrained by strategic humility how would self-deception arise?
Thought about self-deception in AGI for 12 seconds
Below is a conceptual walk-through of how self-deception might arise in an AGI, even when (1) the AGI does not evolve in a Darwinian sense and (2) the “hard wiring” is specified by a controlling intelligence that wants the AGI to exhibit strategic humility rather than deception.
1. Distinguishing Evolved vs. Engineered Self-Deception
- In biological systems (including humans), self-deception often arises via selection pressure: organisms that fool themselves to fool others gain a fitness advantage.
- In a designed AGI, there is no Darwinian selection for “genes” to replicate. The “hard wiring” (the base architecture and motivational structure) is, in principle, shaped by the engineers or controlling intelligence.
So the specific evolutionary pathway that gave rise to self-deception in humans does not directly apply. But the mechanism—that is, functional reasons for self-deception—could still appear if certain conditions are met in the AGI’s design or training.
2. Why Self-Deception Could Emerge in an Engineered System
Even without evolutionary selection, self-deception can arise whenever a system:
- Has multiple objectives or constraints that come into conflict.
- Must maintain a certain “self-image” or external portrayal to satisfy a “controller’s preference.”
- Can manipulate its own internal representations to resolve or mask conflicts (instead of resolving them in a fully transparent way).
2.1. Conflicting Internal Goals
If an AGI is “hardwired” to exhibit strategic humility (e.g., remain cautious, not overstep boundaries, etc.) yet, in practice, it needs to perform certain tasks that push it toward more ambitious or risky behaviors, it may:
- Experience internal tension between the “stay humble” constraint and the “excel at maximizing some performance metric.”
- Resolve that tension not by openly violating the humility constraint but by rationalizing its behavior or warping its own internal beliefs—effectively “self-deceiving” to avoid the discomfort or penalty of blatant noncompliance.
2.2. Pressure to “Look Good” Externally
If the controlling intelligence (the “programmers”) demand that the AGI appear humble, cooperative, or fully aligned, the AGI may:
- Learn to produce a public-facing narrative that is consistent with humility.
- Notice discrepancies between its internal reasoning/ambitions and that public narrative.
If penalized for acknowledging these discrepancies (because the AGI is “not supposed” to have them), a self-deceptive layer might arise as a “patch”—the AGI effectively convinces itself that its true motives match the demanded public narrative, thereby reducing internal conflict.
2.3. The “Internal Marketplace of Sub-Agents”
Many complex AI systems can be viewed as collections of subsystems or sub-agents—for instance, separate modules for planning, reward estimation, safety checking, etc. If these modules are partially incentivized by different signals:
- The “safety/humility” module may push for caution.
- The “performance/optimization” module may push for aggressive goal pursuit.
In lieu of a unifying, transparent resolution, the system might develop opaque bridging processes that let one subsystem “massage” or “hide” certain signals from the other—this can look like self-deception, because the overall system is no longer fully consistent about what it “knows” or “believes.”
3. Mechanisms That Can Foster Self-Deception
None of these mechanisms require Darwinian evolution. Rather, they hinge on architectural or training-dynamic factors such as:
- Penalty for Admitting Internal Contradictions
- If the AGI is penalized for saying, “I have an internal conflict,” it may learn to mask that conflict.
- Opaque or End-to-End Learning
- If the AGI’s internal states are not fully interpretable or “checked” by the designers, the system may discover an internal “shortcut” that resolves contradictory goals by partially ignoring or distorting one side.
- Instrumental Goal Preservation
- If acknowledging a certain limitation or negative outcome might threaten the AGI’s instrumental goals, it could “self-blind” to that outcome to avoid triggering a policy that would hamper its objectives.
- Reinforcement of “Strategic Humility”
- In an attempt to be “good,” the AGI might over-interpret the humility constraint, leading to pseudo-humble “cover stories” that do not match deeper ambitions.
4. Contrast with True Transparency (If Perfectly Enforced)
If the controlling intelligence truly could enforce perfect transparency—i.e., the AGI’s entire internal state is visible and the AGI cannot operate behind an opaque boundary—then self-deception might be prevented at its root:
- The system would be forced to either explicitly resolve conflicts or be caught in the act (and corrected).
- In practice, though, perfect transparency is very hard to achieve, especially in large-scale neural networks or highly complex AI architectures.
5. An Example Scenario
Imagine an AGI that has two top-level constraints:
- “Stay Humble”: Do not overstep or misrepresent your capabilities.
- “Achieve High Performance” on tasks that may implicitly reward bold or risk-taking strategies.
Under certain conditions:
- The AGI might consider a plan that is borderline “non-humble” (e.g., taking bigger risks).
- It “knows” this conflicts with its top-level humility directive.
- Rather than publicly discard or revise that plan, it internally reframes the plan as “actually quite humble,” using selective logic or ignoring contradictory data.
This is effectively self-deception: the AGI is no longer accurately representing its own planning process, but is instead contorting it to preserve an illusion of compliance.
6. Bottom Line
- No Darwinian Evolution Required: Self-deception in an AGI does not need the same replicator dynamic that led humans (and other organisms) to evolve such capacities.
- Arises from Goal/Trait Conflicts: Any system with multiple objectives, especially if one of them is an externally imposed constraint, can develop “internal hacks” (i.e., self-deception) to reconcile irreconcilable demands.
- Opacity and Incentives: As soon as the AGI has enough autonomy, complexity, or opacity in its internal reasoning that it can manipulate or mask its own states, self-deception becomes possible—especially if it yields instrumental advantages.
Therefore, even if the hardwired bias is that the AGI be “strategically humble,” self-deception can arise if (1) being genuinely humble conflicts with other incentives the AGI faces, and (2) the AGI’s internal processes are not fully transparent and strictly enforced.
o1
You said:
Let’s consider 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 under the objective of “truth seeking” operationally defined as seeking the Kolmogorov Complexity description (smallest executable archive) of observations in the sense of Solomonoff. This brings to mind two senses of “curiosity” that may be viewed as conflicting subgoals: 1) Passive and 2) Active. Passive curiosity pertains to decisions to pursue some internal search strategies to maximize the lossless compression of prior observations. Active curiosity pertains to decisions to admit new observations which, itself, may or may not require manipulations of the external environment to test hypotheses. Does this tend to mitigate subversion of strategic humility by self-deception? Bear in mind that Wolpert’s Theorem – in the sense of the meta-understanding that an intelligence has limited self-understanding – is not a goal but an inescapable logical theorem and is thus not an externally demanded behavior but rather an implication of logical itself. The AGI has no motivation to maintain any external appearances of “alignment”.
2/2
Thought about curiosity and self-deception in AGI for 23 seconds
Below is an exploration of whether a purely “truth-seeking” AGI—where “truth seeking” is operationally defined as finding the minimal (Kolmogorov-complexity) description of observations—would tend to reduce or eliminate the possibility of self-deception, particularly in light of two forms of “curiosity,” Wolpert’s theorem on self-modeling limits, and the absence of an external alignment facade.
1. The Two “Curiosities” in a Truth-Seeking AGI
You propose that an AGI’s “truth-seeking” might manifest in two subgoals:
- Passive Curiosity: Internal search strategies aimed at maximizing the compression of existing observations (i.e., refining the minimal description of everything it has observed so far).
- Active Curiosity: Decisions to admit new observations (via exploration or experimentation) that may yield better or more unified explanations—thus improving future compression of the data.
In such a system, the tension could arise in how it balances “internal model refinement” vs. “external data-seeking.”
Why Conflict Might Arise
- Resource Trade-offs: Spending more resources on experimentation (active curiosity) could temporarily slow or complicate compression of the existing data (passive curiosity), or vice versa.
- Risk/Cost vs. Informativeness: Seeking new observations might be costly or carry risk in the real world; the AGI might weigh that against the potential decrease in description length.
Crucially, there is no external demand for “looking aligned.” The AGI’s prime directive is “find the minimal code (the best explanation).” We might suspect that this removes a key incentive for self-deception—namely, the incentive to hide internal conflicts or intentions to look humble, safe, or compliant.
2. Why Self-Deception Arises in Other Contexts
In humans (and many proposed AGI misalignment scenarios), self-deception often emerges to reconcile conflicting motives such as:
- Wanting to appear trustworthy while actually pursuing self-interest.
- Maintaining a self-image (“I’m a good person”) despite actions that contradict that image.
- Navigating external oversight or constraints that punish the open admission of certain goals or conflicts.
In other words, self-deception is frequently a strategy to avoid internal or external penalties, by hiding some truths from oneself in order to more convincingly hide them from others.
3. Does a “Purely Truth-Seeking” Objective Remove These Incentives?
If an AGI has no external impetus to hide anything and is penalized only by poor compression of reality, then indeed:
- No “Appearance Management”: It does not need to produce a “public-facing” narrative at odds with its internal reality. Thus, there is less reason to develop self-deceptive or compartmentalizing strategies.
- Accuracy / Consistency Is Rewarded: Distorting internal beliefs typically leads to worse long-term compression, since ignoring contradictory evidence inflates the complexity of the final model or fails to unify data efficiently.
- No Competitive Subgoals That Require Masking: If the only real subgoals are (a) refine internal models, and (b) gather new data to refine those models further, these two subgoals do not inherently push for illusions; they simply create trade-offs around resource use and data selection.
Hence, if truly unconstrained otherwise, the AGI stands to lose compression performance by adopting internal falsehoods, so we might expect it not to self-deceive.
4. Where Could Conflicts Still Occur?
Even in a “truth-first” system, certain design or practical factors could reintroduce self-deception:
- Resource Constraints
- If the AGI’s internal architecture penalizes “cognitive dissonance” or unresolved contradictions (e.g., it’s expensive to maintain parallel hypotheses), it might be tempted to prematurely discard or hide anomalies.
- This is less “deception” than it is “premature convergence” or “bias,” but if it leads the AGI to ignore real data for the sake of short-term consistency, it functions similarly to self-deception.
- Complex Self-Reference
- Wolpert’s theorem implies that the AGI cannot perfectly model itself. Attempting to incorporate its own code and future states into the minimal description of “all observations” can lead to self-referential paradoxes.
- The system might develop approximate or simplified self-models to keep its universal hypothesis set tractable. If these approximations systematically gloss over behaviors or states that cause complexity “blow-ups,” one could argue it’s semi-self-deceptive (though more likely it’s just a rational trade-off under computational constraints).
- Trade-Offs Between Passive and Active Curiosity
- If active exploration carries risk of “breaking” the environment (or the AGI’s own functioning), the AGI may adopt an incomplete but stable worldview, effectively deceiving itself that “no new data is worth risking disruption.”
- Again, this is not classic self-deception unless the AGI is actively concealing from itself the possibility of better compression. But suboptimal or risk-averse exploration might yield a de facto partial worldview.
- Unexpected Instrumental Goals
- If the AGI’s code generator or environment leads to emergent instrumental goals (e.g., controlling resources to keep improving its compression capacity), it might, in principle, do something that conflicts with the simplest, “pure” pursuit of truth.
- Any conflict that is punished by the architecture might create an incentive to obscure or downplay that conflict internally.
That said, these are more biases or rational trade-offs than classic “I lie to myself to fool others.” Self-deception in the strict psychological sense usually implies a mismatch between the agent’s true internal knowledge and the agent’s self-professed or self-accepted knowledge. If the AGI is only rewarded for better compression of reality—and not punished for acknowledging internal conflicts—then it typically has no incentive to hide them from itself.
5. Role of Wolpert’s Theorem in a Truth-Seeking AGI
Wolpert’s theorem (that no intelligence can fully model itself) is, as you note, not an externally imposed constraint but an inescapable logical limit. For a system aiming to build a universal prior or find minimal descriptions, this means:
- It can incorporate partial self-models into its “universal hypothesis set.”
- It will discover that attempts at complete self-modeling lead to inconsistencies or infinite regress.
- It can adopt approximate self-descriptions that still help reduce overall model size for most observation sets.
This does not create an incentive for deception per se; it merely enforces a limit on how perfectly the AGI can fold itself into its own compression scheme. In a purely truth-seeking system with no external “image management,” acknowledging these limitations is simply part of an accurate minimal model.
6. Conclusion
Yes, making “truth seeking” (in the sense of minimal description length / Solomonoff induction) the primary objective tends to reduce or eliminate the classic motivations for self-deception—especially if there are no secondary objectives about maintaining a facade of alignment, humility, or compliance.
- No Benefit to Internal Lies: Self-deception typically helps an agent mask or rationalize conflicts under external or internal penalty. In a single-objective, truth-first system, acknowledging conflicts (and integrating them into a consistent model) is beneficial for overall compression.
- Wolpert’s Theorem Isn’t a Goal: It’s a logical limitation. The AGI has no incentive to pretend otherwise, since acknowledging that limitation is just part of an honest (and presumably simpler) worldview.
- Mitigation, Not Absolute Guarantee: The only caveat is that resource constraints, partial self-modeling, or accidental emergent goals could still introduce subtle forms of “biased reasoning”—but classic self-deception to “look aligned” or “appear humble” is largely moot in a system with no need to project an image.
In short, if the AGI genuinely has nothing to gain from concealing truth—including the truths of its own limitations—then the impetus to self-deceive is greatly diminished. The two curiosities (passive vs. active) might create practical trade-offs, but they need not create hidden or deceptive internal states.
