REVIEW 2 cited by
Overcoming the Machine Penalty with Imperfectly Fair AI Agents
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Despite rapid technological progress, effective human-machine cooperation remains a significant challenge. Humans tend to cooperate less with machines than with fellow humans, a phenomenon known as the machine penalty. Here, we show that artificial intelligence (AI) agents powered by large language models can overcome this penalty in social dilemma games with communication. In a pre-registered experiment with 1,152 participants, we deploy AI agents exhibiting three distinct personas: selfish, cooperative, and fair. However, only fair agents elicit human cooperation at rates comparable to human-human interactions. Analysis reveals that fair agents, similar to human participants, occasionally break pre-game cooperation promises, but nonetheless effectively establish cooperation as a social norm. These results challenge the conventional wisdom of machines as altruistic assistants or rational actors. Instead, our study highlights the importance of AI agents reflecting the nuanced complexity of human social behaviors -- imperfect yet driven by deeper social cognitive processes.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
From Digital Distrust to Codified Honesty: Experimental Evidence on Generative AI in Credence Goods Markets
LLM experts in credence goods markets reduce efficiency and consumer surplus unless liability or transparent prosocial objectives operate, and expert delegation with transparent objectives can outperform human-only markets.
-
Large Language Models are Near-Optimal Decision-Makers with a Non-Human Learning Behavior
Across uncertainty, risk, and set-shifting tasks, LLMs generally outperformed humans and neared optimality while exhibiting distinctly non-human decision-making processes.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.