Claim and evidence Close ×
Miller, Yampolskiy and Häggström's paper of 28 January 2020 argues that an AGI might have an instrumental drive to modify its utility function under game-theoretic pressure, which would conflict with the orthogonality thesis, and that AGIs in highly competitive environments might converge to nearly the same utility function. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Date 2020-01-28 · publication Records dated 2020 → Role Contesting Register (kind of text) Nonfiction Engagement Engages a premise. Disputes that final goals stay independent of intelligence, by arguing that intelligence-driven modification of the utility function would make them converge. Scope and limits The paper distinguishes a strong from a weak orthogonality thesis and contests the strong version in competitive environments; it works within, and does not dispute, the Omohundro-Bostrom account of instrumental goals.
The evidence 02 primary source Supports the claim
An AGI Modifying Its Utility Function in Violation of the Orthogonality Thesis ↗ arXiv (2003.00812v1) · 2020-01-28
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “This instrumental drive would conflict with the orthogonality thesis since the modifications would be influenced by the AGI's intelligence. AGIs in highly competitive environments might converge to having nearly the same utility function” Location in source Abstract, PDF p. 1
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors James D. Miller; Roman Yampolskiy; Olle Häggström Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 9f00e3b9849305adcd2679384f10762570df36d43ea5e841e8ac5428382c7d11). arXiv v1 (submitted 31 January 2020), headed 'January 28, 2020'. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-29 Language English (en) Attribution James D. Miller, Roman Yampolskiy, Olle Häggström, “An AGI Modifying Its Utility Function in Violation of the Orthogonality Thesis”, 2020-01-28. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution. Check notes Candidate pack passage, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (33 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. No human editorial review. primary source Supports the claim
An AGI Modifying Its Utility Function in Violation of the Orthogonality Thesis ↗ arXiv (2003.00812v1) · 2020-01-28
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “The strong Orthogonality Thesis would hold that given any environment, more or less any pair of intelligence level and final goal are compatible” Location in source Section on strong and weak orthogonality, PDF p. 3
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors James D. Miller; Roman Yampolskiy; Olle Häggström Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 9f00e3b9849305adcd2679384f10762570df36d43ea5e841e8ac5428382c7d11). arXiv v1 (submitted 31 January 2020), headed 'January 28, 2020'. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-29 Language English (en) Attribution James D. Miller, Roman Yampolskiy, Olle Häggström, “An AGI Modifying Its Utility Function in Violation of the Orthogonality Thesis”, 2020-01-28. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution. Check notes Candidate pack passage, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (23 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. No human editorial review. Status and meaning Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor . An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.
Relation. A passage of the document disputes the proposition or a premise it depends on. The record documents the text’s position, not who is right.
Date. Date of publication, as the source gives it.
Record ID rd-r01-miller-yampolskiy-haggstrom-2020-agi-modifying-utility