A Formalisation of the Purpose Framework: the Autonomy-Alignment Problem in Open-Ended Learning Robots (2403.02514v2)
Abstract: The unprecedented advancement of artificial intelligence enables the development of increasingly autonomous robots. These robots hold significant potential, particularly in moving beyond engineered factory settings to operate in the unstructured environments inhabited by humans. However, this possibility also generates a relevant autonomy-alignment problem to ensure that robots' autonomous learning processes still focus on acquiring knowledge relevant to accomplish human practical purposes, while their behaviour still aligns with their broader purposes. The literature has only begun to address this problem, and a conceptual, terminological, and formal framework is still lacking. Here we address one of the most challenging instances of the problem: autonomous open-ended learning (OEL) robots, capable of cumulatively acquiring new skills and knowledge through direct interaction with the environment, guided by self-generated goals and intrinsic motivations. In particular, we propose a computational framework, first introduced qualitatively and then formalised, to support the design of OEL robot architectures that balance autonomy and control. The framework pivots on the novel concept of purpose. A human purpose specifies what humans (e.g., designers or users) want the robot to learn, do or not do, within a certain boundary of autonomy and independently of the domains in which it operates.The framework decomposes the autonomy-alignment problem into more tractable sub-problems: the alignment of `robot purposes' with human purposes, either by hardwiring or through learning; the arbitration between multiple purposes; the grounding of purposes into specific domain-dependent robot goals; and the competence acquisition needed to accomplish these goals. The framework and its potential utility are further elucidated through the discussion of hypothetical example scenarios framed within it.
- V. G. Santucci, G. Baldassarre, and M. Mirolli, “Which is the best intrinsic motivation signal for learning multiple skills?” Frontiers in Neurorobotics, vol. 7, no. 22, pp. e1–14, 2013.
- S. Doncieux, D. Filliat, N. Díaz-Rodríguez, T. Hospedales, R. Duro, A. Coninx, D. M. Roijers, B. Girard, N. Perrin, and O. Sigaud, “Open-ended learning: A conceptual framework based on representational redescription.” Frontiers in neurorobotics, vol. 12, no. 59, pp. e1–6, 2018.
- O. Sigaud, G. Baldassarre, C. Colas, S. Doncieux, R. Duro, N. Perrin-Gilbert, and V. G. Santucci, “A definition of open-ended learning problems for goal-conditioned agents,” arXiv, Doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2311.00344.
- E. Cartoni, D. Montella, J. Triesch, and G. Baldassarre, “An open-ended learning architecture to face the real 2020 simulated robot competition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13880v1, 2020.
- K. Seepanomwan, V. G. Santucci, and G. Baldassarre, “Intrinsically motivated discovered outcomes boost user’s goals achievement in a humanoid robot,” in Joint IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics, 2017, pp. 178–183, 18-21/09/2017, Lisbon, Portugal.
- C. Brian, The Alignment Problem: Machine Learning and Human Values. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
- M. Khamassi and R. Chatila, “Strong or weak alignment of ai systems with humans values?” T.B.D. or ArXiv link for the moment, 2024.
- G. I. Parisi, R. Kemker, J. L. Part, C. Kanan, and S. Wermter, “Continual lifelong learning with neural networks: A review,” Neural Networks, vol. 113, pp. 54–71, 2019.
- M. Ring, “Continual learning in reinforcement learning environments,” Ph.D. dissertation, 1994.
- Y. Bengio, J. Louradour, R. Collobert, and J. Weston, “Curriculum learning,” in Proceedings of the 26th annual international conference on machine learning (ICML), 2009, pp. 41–48, 14-18/07/2009, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
- P.-Y. Oudeyer, F. Kaplan, and V. Hafner, “Intrinsic motivation systems for autonomous mental development,” IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation, vol. 11, no. 6, 2007.
- G. Baldassarre, “What are intrinsic motivations? a biological perspective,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics, 2011, pp. E1–8, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 24–27/08/2011.
- A. Barto, M. Mirolli, and G. Baldassarre, “Novelty or surprise?” Frontiers in Psychology – Cognitive Science, vol. 4, no. 907, pp. e1–15, 2013.
- E. Hubinger, C. van Merwijk, V. Mikulik, J. Skalse, and S. Garrabrant, “Risks from learned optimization in advanced machine learning systems,” arXiv preprint, 2019, available online at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.01820.pdf. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.01820
- G. Baldassarre, W. Lord, G. Granato, and V. G. Santucci, “An embodied agent learning affordances with intrinsic motivations and solving extrinsic tasks with attention and one-step planning,” Frontiers in Neurorobotics, vol. 13, no. 45, pp. e1–26, 2019.
- K. Friston, F. Rigoli, D. Ognibene, C. Mathys, T. Fitzgerald, and G. Pezzulo, “Active inference and epistemic value,” Cognitive neuroscience, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 187–214, 2015.
- T. Taniguchi, S. Murata, M. Suzuki, D. Ognibene, P. Lanillos, E. Ugur, L. Jamone, T. Nakamura, A. Ciria, B. Lara et al., “World models and predictive coding for cognitive and developmental robotics: frontiers and challenges,” Advanced Robotics, pp. 1–27, 2023.
- M. Khamassi, G. Velentzas, T. Tsitsimis, and C. Tzafestas, “Robot fast adaptation to changes in human engagement during simulated dynamic social interaction with active exploration in parameterized reinforcement learning,” IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 881–893, 2018.
- G. Konidaris and A. Barto, “An adaptive robot motivational system,” in International conference on simulation of adaptive behavior. Springer, 2006, pp. 346–356.
- I. Cos, L. Canamero, G. M. Hayes, and A. Gillies, “Hedonic value: Enhancing adaptation for motivated agents,” Adaptive Behavior, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 465–483, 2013.
- G. Baldassarre, “A planning modular neural-network robot for asynchronous multi-goal navigation tasks,” in Proceedings of the 2001 Fourth European Workshop on Advanced Mobile Robots-EUROBOT, 2001, pp. 223–230.
- S. Doncieux, N. Bredeche, L. L. Goff, B. Girard, A. Coninx, O. Sigaud, M. Khamassi, N. Díaz-Rodríguez, D. Filliat, T. Hospedales et al., “Dream architecture: a developmental approach to open-ended learning in robotics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.06223, 2020.
- G. Velentzas, C. S. Tzafestas, and M. Khamassi, “Memory development with heteroskedastic bayesian last layer probabilistic deep neural networks,” in Workshop on World Models and Predictive Coding in Cognitive Robotics at 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2023), 2023.
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.