The development and widespread deployment of advanced AI agents will give rise to multi-agent systems of unprecedented complexity. A new report from staff at the Cooperative AI Foundation and a host of leading researchers explores the novel and under-appreciated risks these systems pose.

Powerful AI systems are increasingly being deployed with the ability to autonomously interact with the world and adapt their behaviour accordingly. This is a profound change from the more passive, static AI services with which most of us are familiar, such as chatbots and image generation tools. On the other hand, while still relatively rare, groups of AI agents are already responsible for tasks that range from trading million-dollar assets to recommending actions to commanders in battle.

In the coming years, the competitive advantages offered by autonomous, adaptive agents will drive their adoption both in high-stakes domains, and as intelligent personal assistants, capable of being delegated increasingly complex and important tasks. In order to fulfil their roles, these advanced agents will need to communicate and interact with each other and with people, giving rise to new multi-agent systems of unprecedented complexity.

While offering opportunities for scalable automation and more diffuse benefits to society, these systems also present novel risks that are distinct from those posed by single agents or by less advanced AI technologies (which are the focus of most research and policy discussions). In response to this challenge, staff at the Cooperative AI Foundation have published a new report, co-authored with leading researchers from academia and industry.

Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AI offers a crucial first step by providing a taxonomy of risks. It identifies three primary failure modes: miscoordination (failure to cooperate despite shared goals), conflict (failure to cooperate due to differing goals), and collusion (undesirable cooperation in contexts like markets). The report also explains how these failures – among others – can arise via seven key risk factors:

  • Information asymmetries: Private information leading to miscoordination, deception, and conflict;
  • Network effects: Small changes in network structure or properties causing dramatic shifts in system behaviour;
  • Selection pressures: Competition, iterative deployment, and continual learning favouring undesirable behaviours;
  • Destabilising dynamics: Agents adapting in response to one another creating dangerous feedback loops and unpredictability;
  • Commitment and trust: Difficulties in establishing trust preventing mutual gains, or commitments being used for malicious purposes;
  • Emergent agency:  Qualitatively new goals or capabilities arising from collections of agents;
  • Multi-agent security: New security vulnerabilities and attacks arising that are specific to multi-agent systems.

Though the majority of these dynamics have not yet emerged, we are entering a world in which large numbers of increasingly advanced AI agents, interacting with (and adapting to) each other, will soon become the norm. We therefore urgently need to evaluate (and prepare to mitigate) these risks. In order to do so, the report presents several promising directions that can be pursued now:

  • Evaluation: Today's AI systems are developed and tested in isolation, despite the fact that they will soon interact with each other. In order to understand how likely and severe multi-agent risks are, we need new methods of detecting how and when they might arise.
  • Mitigation: Evaluation is only the first step towards mitigating multi-agent risks, which will require new technical advances. While our understanding of these risks is still growing, there are a range of promising directions (detailed further in the report) that we can begin to explore now .
  • Collaboration: Multi-agent risks inherently involve many different actors and stakeholders, often in complex, dynamic environments. Greater progress can be made on these interdisciplinary problems by leveraging insights from other fields.

The report concludes by examining the implications of these risks for existing work in AI safety, governance, and ethics. It shows the need to extend AI safety research beyond single systems to include multi-agent dynamics. It also emphasises the potential of multi-stakeholder governance approaches to mitigate these risks, while acknowledging the novel ethical dilemmas around fairness, collective responsibility, and more that arise in multi-agent contexts.

In doing so, the report aims to provide a foundation for further research, as well as a basis for policymakers seeking to navigate the complex landscape of risks posed by increasingly widespread and sophisticated multi-agent systems. If you are working on the safety, governance, or ethics of AI, and are interested in further exploring the topic of multi-agent risks, please feel free to get in touch or sign up for the cooperative AI newsletter.

Comments3


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Hi, I’m not sure if I failed to read your post before submitting my own or if it was just good timing. 

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/pis8bviKY25RFog92/what-does-an-asi-political-ecology-mean-for-human-survival

 I’m interested in what multi-agent dynamics mean for an ASI political ecology, and what the fact that ASI agents will need to learn negotiation, compromise and cooperation (as well as Machiavellian strategising) means for human flourishing/survival.  I’d like to believe that multi-agent dynamics means humanity might be more likely to be incorporated into the future, but that might just be cope.  Thanks for the link, look forward to reading it.

For context I’m thinking of the paradox of the plankton.. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_plankton

I have also thought about the impact and risks associated with AI multi-agents seeing that we're quickly transitioning to the development, deployment, and use of AI multi-agents.

While there's obvious need for further research, what do you think about the role of AI alignment in mitigating AI multi-agent risks? Lewis Hammond

Thank you and well done to the team at Cooperative AI Foundation 

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
Need help planning your career? Probably Good’s 1-1 advising service is back! After refining our approach and expanding our capacity, we’re excited to once again offer personal advising sessions to help people figure out how to build careers that are good for them and for the world. Our advising is open to people at all career stages who want to have a positive impact across a range of cause areas—whether you're early in your career, looking to make a transition, or facing uncertainty about your next steps. Some applicants come in with specific plans they want feedback on, while others are just beginning to explore what impactful careers could look like for them. Either way, we aim to provide useful guidance tailored to your situation. Learn more about our advising program and apply here. Also, if you know someone who might benefit from an advising call, we’d really appreciate you passing this along. Looking forward to hearing from those interested. Feel free to get in touch if you have any questions. Finally, we wanted to say a big thank you to 80,000 Hours for their help! The input that they gave us, both now and earlier in the process, was instrumental in shaping what our advising program will look like, and we really appreciate their support.