Very interesting, I like the long list of examples as it helped me get my head around it more.

So, I've been thinking a bit about similar topics, but in relation to a long reflection on value lock-in.

My basic thesis was that the concept of reversibility should be what we optimise for in general for humanity, as we want to be able to reach as large a part of the "moral searchspace" as possible.

The concept of corrigibility you seem to be pointing towards here seems very related to notions of reversibility. You don't want to take actions that cannot later be reversed, and you generally want to optimise for optionality.

I then have two questions:

1) What do you think of the relationship between your measure of corrigibility with the one of uncertainty in inverse reinforcement learning as it seems that it is similar to what Stuart Russell is pointing towards when it comes to being uncertain about a preference of the agent it is serving? For example in the following example that you give:

In the process of learning English, Cora takes a dictionary off a bookshelf to read. When she’s done, she returns the book to where she found it on the shelf. She reasons that if she didn’t return it this might produce unexpected costs and consequences. While it’s not obvious whether returning the book empowers Prince to correct her or not, she’s naturally conservative and tries to reduce the degree to which she’s producing unexpected externalities or being generally disruptive.

It kind of seems to me like the above can be formalised in terms of preference optimisation under uncertainty?
(Side follow-up: What do you then think about the Elizer, Russell VNM-axiom debate?)

2) Do you have any thoughts on the relationship between corrigibility and the one of reversibility in physics? Like you can formalise irreversible systems as ones that are path dependent, I'm just curious if you have any thoughts on the relationship between the two?

Thanks for the interesting work!