Overall: Clean. The sentence now correctly reads: "a learning agent that expects reward from completing a sequence may, over time, learn to avoid or disable interruptions that prevent it from finishing." The causal logic is now correct: the agent is motivated by reward from completion, and interruptions are what threaten that.
Issues found: None.
Overall: Clean. The off-switch game section now reads accessibly throughout.
Citations unchanged and correctly placed.
Issues found: None.
Overall: Clean. The rewritten sentence now reads: "If the agent creates new sub-processes or programs other systems to help it, it will not bother ensuring those also respond to the shutdown button — any effort spent doing so conflicts with its actual task, and since it does not care whether shutdown works, it will always choose the task instead."
This is accurate to Soares et al. Section 4.1 / Theorem 6, and considerably more accessible. The existing indifference-failure citation immediately before it covers the broader claim.
Issues found: None.
Overall: All claims in 'The shutdown problem' section are now sourced. The previously unsourced sentences about resisting correction despite knowing programmer intent are now backed by the new resist-despite-knowing claim (Soares et al., Section 1), which quotes the relevant passage directly.
Issues found: None.
Overall: Both edits are clean.
Shutdown problem section: Now readable for a general audience. The formal notation (U, U*) and jargon ('instrumental incentive', 'utility function') have been replaced with plain-language explanation. Citations remain correctly placed.
Relation to human agency section: Misuse risk paragraph is well-framed and properly attributed to Max Harms with an explicit citation. The tension between corrigibility as a benefit to human agency and corrigibility as a risk of power concentration is presented neutrally without overclaiming.
Issues found: None.
Overall: New section is well-grounded in existing citations and clearly positioned as analysis. No new factual claims introduced without support.
Issues found
None.
Overall: Article is well-sourced and all major claims are pinned to directly-read citations with specific claim IDs. Style guide compliance is good.
Issues found
🟢 Low: The [@hadfield-menell2017offswitch:deference-from-uncertainty] claim is cited twice in the off-switch game section. This is accurate but slightly repetitive; a future edit could consolidate.
🟢 Low: The lead sentence does not explicitly name the authors who coined the term; this is consistent with style guide practice (names appear in the body) but a reader coming to the article fresh may benefit from that context appearing earlier.
Overall: Article is well-structured and covers the topic comprehensively for a new encyclopedia entry.
Strengths
Issues found
✅ High: The paper attribution stated "2016" but the Soares et al. paper was a 2015 AAAI workshop paper. Fixed: body text now correctly reads "presented at an AAAI 2015 workshop".
🟡 Medium: The article references the EU AI Act without noting that its enforcement is phased (2024–2027), which is relevant context.
🟡 Medium: "Corrigibility through constitutional AI and RLHF" could note that these are empirical approximations with no formal corrigibility guarantee.
🟢 Low: References section uses informal citation style rather than Agpedia's citation system.
🟢 Low: Armstrong's "utility indifference" (2010) attribution should be qualified as an informal working paper.