-
Trust AI Regulation? Discerning users are vital to build trust and effective AI regulation
Authors:
Zainab Alalawi,
Paolo Bova,
Theodor Cimpeanu,
Alessandro Di Stefano,
Manh Hong Duong,
Elias Fernandez Domingos,
The Anh Han,
Marcus Krellner,
Bianca Ogbo,
Simon T. Powers,
Filippo Zimmaro
Abstract:
There is general agreement that some form of regulation is necessary both for AI creators to be incentivised to develop trustworthy systems, and for users to actually trust those systems. But there is much debate about what form these regulations should take and how they should be implemented. Most work in this area has been qualitative, and has not been able to make formal predictions. Here, we p…
▽ More
There is general agreement that some form of regulation is necessary both for AI creators to be incentivised to develop trustworthy systems, and for users to actually trust those systems. But there is much debate about what form these regulations should take and how they should be implemented. Most work in this area has been qualitative, and has not been able to make formal predictions. Here, we propose that evolutionary game theory can be used to quantitatively model the dilemmas faced by users, AI creators, and regulators, and provide insights into the possible effects of different regulatory regimes. We show that creating trustworthy AI and user trust requires regulators to be incentivised to regulate effectively. We demonstrate the effectiveness of two mechanisms that can achieve this. The first is where governments can recognise and reward regulators that do a good job. In that case, if the AI system is not too risky for users then some level of trustworthy development and user trust evolves. We then consider an alternative solution, where users can condition their trust decision on the effectiveness of the regulators. This leads to effective regulation, and consequently the development of trustworthy AI and user trust, provided that the cost of implementing regulations is not too high. Our findings highlight the importance of considering the effect of different regulatory regimes from an evolutionary game theoretic perspective.
△ Less
Submitted 14 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
Words are not Wind -- How Joint Commitment and Reputation Solve Social Dilemmas, without Repeated Interactions or Enforcement by Third Parties
Authors:
Marcus Krellner,
The Anh Han
Abstract:
Joint commitment was argued to "make our social world" (Gilbert, 2014) and to separate us from other primates. 'Joint' entails that neither of us promises anything, unless the other promises as well. When we need to coordinate for the best mutual outcome, any commitment is beneficial. However, when we are tempted to free-ride (i.e. in social dilemmas), commitment serves no obvious purpose. We show…
▽ More
Joint commitment was argued to "make our social world" (Gilbert, 2014) and to separate us from other primates. 'Joint' entails that neither of us promises anything, unless the other promises as well. When we need to coordinate for the best mutual outcome, any commitment is beneficial. However, when we are tempted to free-ride (i.e. in social dilemmas), commitment serves no obvious purpose. We show that a reputation system, which judges action in social dilemmas only after joint commitment, can prevent free-riding. Kee** commitments builds trust. We can selectively enter joint commitments with trustworthy individuals to ensure their cooperation (since they will now be judged). We simply do not commit to cooperate with those we do not trust, and hence can freely defect without losing the trust of others. This principle might be the reason for pointedly public joint commitments, such as marriage. It is especially relevant to our evolutionary past, in which no mechanisms existed to enforce commitments reliably and impartially (e.g. via a powerful and accountable government). Much research from anthropology, philosophy and psychology made the assumption that past collaborations were mutually beneficial and had little possibilities to free-ride, for which there is little support. Our evolutionary game theory approach proves that this assumption is not necessary, because free-riding could have been dealt with joint commitments and reputation.
△ Less
Submitted 13 July, 2023;
originally announced July 2023.
-
Ethics in rotten apples: A network epidemiology approach for active cyber defense
Authors:
Francesco Bonacina,
Ignacio Echegoyen,
Diego Escribano,
Marcus Krellner,
Francesco Paolo Nerini,
Rasha Shanaz,
Andreia Sofia Teixeira,
Alberto Aleta
Abstract:
As Internet of Things (IoT) technology grows, so does the threat of malware infections. A proposed countermeasure, the use of benevolent "white worms" to combat malicious "black worms", presents unique ethical and practical challenges. This study examines these issues via network epidemiology models and simulations, considering the propagation dynamics of both types of worms in various network top…
▽ More
As Internet of Things (IoT) technology grows, so does the threat of malware infections. A proposed countermeasure, the use of benevolent "white worms" to combat malicious "black worms", presents unique ethical and practical challenges. This study examines these issues via network epidemiology models and simulations, considering the propagation dynamics of both types of worms in various network topologies. Our findings highlight the critical role of the rate at which white worms activate themselves, relative to the user's system update rate, as well as the impact of the network structure on worm propagation. The results point to the potential of white worms as an effective countermeasure, while underscoring the ethical and practical complexities inherent in their deployment.
△ Less
Submitted 30 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
-
We both think you did wrong -- How agreement shapes and is shaped by indirect reciprocity
Authors:
Marcus Krellner,
The Anh Han
Abstract:
Humans judge each other's actions, which at least partly functions to detect and deter cheating and to enable helpfulness in an indirect reciprocity fashion. However, most forms of judging do not only concern the action itself, but also the moral status of the receiving individual (to deter cheating it must be morally acceptable to withhold help from cheaters). This is a problem, when not everybod…
▽ More
Humans judge each other's actions, which at least partly functions to detect and deter cheating and to enable helpfulness in an indirect reciprocity fashion. However, most forms of judging do not only concern the action itself, but also the moral status of the receiving individual (to deter cheating it must be morally acceptable to withhold help from cheaters). This is a problem, when not everybody agrees who is good and who is bad. Although it has been widely acknowledged that disagreement may exist and that it can be detrimental for indirect reciprocity, the details of this crucial feature of moral judgments have never been studied in depth. We show, that even when everybody assesses individually (aka privately), some moral judgement systems (aka norms) can lead to high levels of agreement. We give a detailed account of the mechanisms which cause it and we show how to predict agreement analytically without requiring agent-based simulations, and for any observation rate. Finally, we show that agreement may increase or decrease reputations and therefore how much helpfulness (aka cooperation) occurs.
△ Less
Submitted 22 April, 2023;
originally announced April 2023.
