Skip to Content
logologo
AI Incident Database
Open TwitterOpen RSS FeedOpen FacebookOpen LinkedInOpen GitHub
Open Menu
Discover
Submit
  • Welcome to the AIID
  • Discover Incidents
  • Spatial View
  • Table View
  • List view
  • Entities
  • Taxonomies
  • Submit Incident Reports
  • Submission Leaderboard
  • Blog
  • AI News Digest
  • Risk Checklists
  • Random Incident
  • Sign Up
Collapse
Discover
Submit
  • Welcome to the AIID
  • Discover Incidents
  • Spatial View
  • Table View
  • List view
  • Entities
  • Taxonomies
  • Submit Incident Reports
  • Submission Leaderboard
  • Blog
  • AI News Digest
  • Risk Checklists
  • Random Incident
  • Sign Up
Collapse

Incident 65: Reinforcement Learning Reward Functions in Video Games

Description: OpenAI published a post about its findings when using Universe, a software for measuring and training AI agents to conduct reinforcement learning experiments, showing that the AI agent did not act in the way intended to complete a videogame.

Tools

New ReportNew ReportNew ResponseNew ResponseDiscoverDiscoverView HistoryView History

Entities

View all entities
Alleged: OpenAI developed and deployed an AI system, which harmed OpenAI.

Incident Stats

Incident ID
65
Report Count
1
Incident Date
2016-12-22
Editors
Sean McGregor
Applied Taxonomies
CSETv0, CSETv1, GMF, MIT

CSETv1 Taxonomy Classifications

Taxonomy Details

Incident Number

The number of the incident in the AI Incident Database.
 

65

Special Interest Intangible Harm

An assessment of whether a special interest intangible harm occurred. This assessment does not consider the context of the intangible harm, if an AI was involved, or if there is characterizable class or subgroup of harmed entities. It is also not assessing if an intangible harm occurred. It is only asking if a special interest intangible harm occurred.
 

no

Date of Incident Year

The year in which the incident occurred. If there are multiple harms or occurrences of the incident, list the earliest. If a precise date is unavailable, but the available sources provide a basis for estimating the year, estimate. Otherwise, leave blank. Enter in the format of YYYY
 

2016

Date of Incident Month

The month in which the incident occurred. If there are multiple harms or occurrences of the incident, list the earliest. If a precise date is unavailable, but the available sources provide a basis for estimating the month, estimate. Otherwise, leave blank. Enter in the format of MM
 

12

Date of Incident Day

The day on which the incident occurred. If a precise date is unavailable, leave blank. Enter in the format of DD
 

21

Estimated Date

“Yes” if the data was estimated. “No” otherwise.
 

Yes

CSETv0 Taxonomy Classifications

Taxonomy Details

Problem Nature

Indicates which, if any, of the following types of AI failure describe the incident: "Specification," i.e. the system's behavior did not align with the true intentions of its designer, operator, etc; "Robustness," i.e. the system operated unsafely because of features or changes in its environment, or in the inputs the system received; "Assurance," i.e. the system could not be adequately monitored or controlled during operation.
 

Specification

Physical System

Where relevant, indicates whether the AI system(s) was embedded into or tightly associated with specific types of hardware.
 

Software only

Level of Autonomy

The degree to which the AI system(s) functions independently from human intervention. "High" means there is no human involved in the system action execution; "Medium" means the system generates a decision and a human oversees the resulting action; "low" means the system generates decision-support output and a human makes a decision and executes an action.
 

Unclear/unknown

Nature of End User

"Expert" if users with special training or technical expertise were the ones meant to benefit from the AI system(s)’ operation; "Amateur" if the AI systems were primarily meant to benefit the general public or untrained users.
 

Expert

Public Sector Deployment

"Yes" if the AI system(s) involved in the accident were being used by the public sector or for the administration of public goods (for example, public transportation). "No" if the system(s) were being used in the private sector or for commercial purposes (for example, a ride-sharing company), on the other.
 

No

Data Inputs

A brief description of the data that the AI system(s) used or were trained on.
 

Universe software training

MIT Taxonomy Classifications

Machine-Classified
Taxonomy Details

Risk Subdomain

A further 23 subdomains create an accessible and understandable classification of hazards and harms associated with AI
 

7.1. AI pursuing its own goals in conflict with human goals or values

Risk Domain

The Domain Taxonomy of AI Risks classifies risks into seven AI risk domains: (1) Discrimination & toxicity, (2) Privacy & security, (3) Misinformation, (4) Malicious actors & misuse, (5) Human-computer interaction, (6) Socioeconomic & environmental harms, and (7) AI system safety, failures & limitations.
 
  1. AI system safety, failures, and limitations

Entity

Which, if any, entity is presented as the main cause of the risk
 

AI

Timing

The stage in the AI lifecycle at which the risk is presented as occurring
 

Post-deployment

Intent

Whether the risk is presented as occurring as an expected or unexpected outcome from pursuing a goal
 

Unintentional

Incident Reports

Reports Timeline

+1
Faulty Reward Functions in the Wild
Faulty Reward Functions in the Wild

Faulty Reward Functions in the Wild

blog.openai.com

Faulty Reward Functions in the Wild
blog.openai.com · 2016

At OpenAI, we've recently started using Universe, our software for measuring and training AI agents, to conduct new RL experiments. Sometimes these experiments illustrate some of the issues with RL as currently practiced. In the following e…

Variants

A "variant" is an incident that shares the same causative factors, produces similar harms, and involves the same intelligent systems as a known AI incident. Rather than index variants as entirely separate incidents, we list variations of incidents under the first similar incident submitted to the database. Unlike other submission types to the incident database, variants are not required to have reporting in evidence external to the Incident Database. Learn more from the research paper.

Similar Incidents

By textual similarity

Did our AI mess up? Flag the unrelated incidents

Biased Sentiment Analysis

Biased Sentiment Analysis

Oct 2017 · 7 reports
Gender Biases in Google Translate

Gender Biases in Google Translate

Apr 2017 · 10 reports
Tesla Autopilot’s Lane Recognition Allegedly Vulnerable to Adversarial Attacks

Tesla Autopilot’s Lane Recognition Allegedly Vulnerable to Adversarial Attacks

Mar 2019 · 1 report
Previous IncidentNext Incident

Similar Incidents

By textual similarity

Did our AI mess up? Flag the unrelated incidents

Biased Sentiment Analysis

Biased Sentiment Analysis

Oct 2017 · 7 reports
Gender Biases in Google Translate

Gender Biases in Google Translate

Apr 2017 · 10 reports
Tesla Autopilot’s Lane Recognition Allegedly Vulnerable to Adversarial Attacks

Tesla Autopilot’s Lane Recognition Allegedly Vulnerable to Adversarial Attacks

Mar 2019 · 1 report

Research

  • Defining an “AI Incident”
  • Defining an “AI Incident Response”
  • Database Roadmap
  • Related Work
  • Download Complete Database

Project and Community

  • About
  • Contact and Follow
  • Apps and Summaries
  • Editor’s Guide

Incidents

  • All Incidents in List Form
  • Flagged Incidents
  • Submission Queue
  • Classifications View
  • Taxonomies

2023 - AI Incident Database

  • Terms of use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Open twitterOpen githubOpen rssOpen facebookOpen linkedin
  • 30ebe76