Abstract Interactive reinforcement learning proposes the use of externally sourced information in order to speed up the learning process. When interacting with a learner agent, humans may provide either evaluative or informative advice. Prior research has focused on the effect of human-sourced advice by including real-time feedback on the interactive reinforcement learning process, specifically aiming to improve the learning speed of the agent, while minimising the time demands on the human. This work focuses on answering which of two approaches, evaluative or informative, is the preferred instructional approach for humans. Moreover, this work presents an experimental setup for a human trial designed to compare the methods people use to deliver advice in terms of human engagement. The results obtained show that users giving informative advice to the learner agents provide more accurate advice, are willing to assist the learner agent for a longer time, and provide more advice per episode. Additionally, self-evaluation from participants using the informative approach has indicated that the agent’s ability to follow the advice is higher, and therefore, they feel their own advice to be of higher accuracy when compared to people providing evaluative advice.

Abstract The recent paper “Reward is Enough” by Silver, Singh, Precup and Sutton posits that the concept of reward maximisation is sufficient to underpin all intelligence, both natural and artificial, and provides a suitable basis for the creation of artificial general intelligence. We contest the underlying assumption of Silver et al. that such reward can be scalar-valued. In this paper we explain why scalar rewards are insufficient to account for some aspects of both biological and computational intelligence, and argue in favour of explicitly multi-objective models of reward maximisation. Furthermore, we contend that even if scalar reward functions can trigger intelligent behaviour in specific cases, this type of reward is insufficient for the development of human-aligned artificial general intelligence due to unacceptable risks of unsafe or unethical behaviour.