-
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.
-
Mitigating Biases in Collective Decision-Making: Enhancing Performance in the Face of Fake News
Authors:
Axel Abels,
Elias Fernandez Domingos,
Ann Nowé,
Tom Lenaerts
Abstract:
Individual and social biases undermine the effectiveness of human advisers by inducing judgment errors which can disadvantage protected groups. In this paper, we study the influence these biases can have in the pervasive problem of fake news by evaluating human participants' capacity to identify false headlines. By focusing on headlines involving sensitive characteristics, we gather a comprehensiv…
▽ More
Individual and social biases undermine the effectiveness of human advisers by inducing judgment errors which can disadvantage protected groups. In this paper, we study the influence these biases can have in the pervasive problem of fake news by evaluating human participants' capacity to identify false headlines. By focusing on headlines involving sensitive characteristics, we gather a comprehensive dataset to explore how human responses are shaped by their biases. Our analysis reveals recurring individual biases and their permeation into collective decisions. We show that demographic factors, headline categories, and the manner in which information is presented significantly influence errors in human judgment. We then use our collected data as a benchmark problem on which we evaluate the efficacy of adaptive aggregation algorithms. In addition to their improved accuracy, our results highlight the interactions between the emergence of collective intelligence and the mitigation of participant biases.
△ Less
Submitted 11 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
Defaults: a double-edged sword in governing common resources
Authors:
Eladio Montero-Porras,
Rémi Suchon,
Tom Lenaerts,
Elias Fernández Domingos
Abstract:
Extracting from shared resources requires making choices to balance personal profit and sustainability. We present the results of a behavioural experiment wherein we manipulate the default extraction from a finite resource. Participants were exposed to two treatments -- pro-social or self-serving extraction defaults -- and a control without defaults. We examined the persistence of these nudges by…
▽ More
Extracting from shared resources requires making choices to balance personal profit and sustainability. We present the results of a behavioural experiment wherein we manipulate the default extraction from a finite resource. Participants were exposed to two treatments -- pro-social or self-serving extraction defaults -- and a control without defaults. We examined the persistence of these nudges by removing the default after five rounds. Results reveal that a self-serving default increased the average extraction while present, whereas a pro-social default only decreased extraction for the first two rounds. Notably, the influence of defaults depended on individual inclinations, with cooperative individuals extracting more under a self-serving default, and selfish individuals less under a pro-social default. After the removal of the default, we observed no significant differences with the control treatment. Our research highlights the potential of defaults as cost-effective tools for promoting sustainability, while also advocating for a careful use to avoid adverse effects.
△ Less
Submitted 11 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
The art of compensation: how hybrid teams solve collective risk dilemmas
Authors:
Inês Terrucha,
Elias Fernández Domingos,
Francisco C. Santos,
Pieter Simoens,
Tom Lenaerts
Abstract:
It is widely known how the human ability to cooperate has influenced the thriving of our species. However, as we move towards a hybrid human-machine future, it is still unclear how the introduction of AI agents in our social interactions will affect this cooperative capacity. Within the context of the one-shot collective risk dilemma, where enough members of a group must cooperate in order to avoi…
▽ More
It is widely known how the human ability to cooperate has influenced the thriving of our species. However, as we move towards a hybrid human-machine future, it is still unclear how the introduction of AI agents in our social interactions will affect this cooperative capacity. Within the context of the one-shot collective risk dilemma, where enough members of a group must cooperate in order to avoid a collective disaster, we study the evolutionary dynamics of cooperation in a hybrid population made of both adaptive and fixed-behavior agents. Specifically, we show how the first learn to adapt their behavior to compensate for the behavior of the latter. The less the (artificially) fixed agents cooperate, the more the adaptive population is motivated to cooperate, and vice-versa, especially when the risk is higher. By pinpointing how adaptive agents avoid their share of costly cooperation if the fixed-behavior agents implement a cooperative policy, our work hints towards an unbalanced hybrid world. On one hand, this means that introducing cooperative AI agents within our society might unburden human efforts. Nevertheless, it is important to note that costless artificial cooperation might not be realistic, and more than deploying AI systems that carry the cooperative effort, we must focus on mechanisms that nudge shared cooperation among all members in the hybrid system.
△ Less
Submitted 13 May, 2022;
originally announced May 2022.
-
Delegation to autonomous agents promotes cooperation in collective-risk dilemmas
Authors:
Elias Fernández Domingos,
Inês Terrucha,
Rémi Suchon,
Jelena Grujić,
Juan C. Burguillo,
Francisco C. Santos,
Tom Lenaerts
Abstract:
Home assistant chat-bots, self-driving cars, drones or automated negotiations are some of the several examples of autonomous (artificial) agents that have pervaded our society. These agents enable the automation of multiple tasks, saving time and (human) effort. However, their presence in social settings raises the need for a better understanding of their effect on social interactions and how they…
▽ More
Home assistant chat-bots, self-driving cars, drones or automated negotiations are some of the several examples of autonomous (artificial) agents that have pervaded our society. These agents enable the automation of multiple tasks, saving time and (human) effort. However, their presence in social settings raises the need for a better understanding of their effect on social interactions and how they may be used to enhance cooperation towards the public good, instead of hindering it. To this end, we present an experimental study of human delegation to autonomous agents and hybrid human-agent interactions centered on a public goods dilemma shaped by a collective risk. Our aim to understand experimentally whether the presence of autonomous agents has a positive or negative impact on social behaviour, fairness and cooperation in such a dilemma. Our results show that cooperation increases when participants delegate their actions to an artificial agent that plays on their behalf. Yet, this positive effect is reduced when humans interact in hybrid human-agent groups. Finally, we show that humans are biased towards agent behaviour, assuming that they will contribute less to the collective effort.
△ Less
Submitted 13 March, 2021;
originally announced March 2021.
-
Timing uncertainty in collective risk dilemmas encourages group reciprocation and polarization
Authors:
Elias Fernández Domingos,
Jelena Grujić,
Juan C. Burguillo,
Georg Kirchsteiger,
Francisco C. Santos,
Tom Lenaerts
Abstract:
Human social dilemmas are often shaped by actions involving uncertain goals and returns that may only be achieved in the future. Climate action, voluntary vaccination and other prospective choices stand as paramount examples of this setting. In this context, as well as in many other social dilemmas, uncertainty may produce non-trivial effects. Whereas uncertainty about collective targets and their…
▽ More
Human social dilemmas are often shaped by actions involving uncertain goals and returns that may only be achieved in the future. Climate action, voluntary vaccination and other prospective choices stand as paramount examples of this setting. In this context, as well as in many other social dilemmas, uncertainty may produce non-trivial effects. Whereas uncertainty about collective targets and their impact were shown to negatively affect group coordination and success, no information is available about timing uncertainty, i.e. how uncertainty about when the target needs to be reached affects the outcome as well as the decision-making. Here we show experimentally, through a collective dilemma wherein groups of participants need to avoid a tip** point under the risk of collective loss, that timing uncertainty prompts not only early generosity but also polarized contributions, in which participants' total contributions are distributed more unfairly than when there is no uncertainty. Analyzing participant behavior reveals, under uncertainty, an increase in reciprocal strategies wherein contributions are conditional on the previous donations of the other participants, a group analogue of the well-known Tit-for-Tat strategy. Although large timing uncertainty appears to reduce collective success, groups that successfully collect the required amount show strong reciprocal coordination. This conclusion is supported by a game theoretic model examining the dominance of behaviors in case of timing uncertainty. In general, timing uncertainty casts a shadow on the future that leads participants to respond early, encouraging reciprocal behaviors, and unequal contributions.
△ Less
Submitted 5 May, 2020; v1 submitted 16 March, 2020;
originally announced March 2020.
