Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

From Firms to Computation: AI Governance and the Evolution of Institutions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that AI governance can be modelled as multi-level selection acting on firms, humans, and AI together, with institutional rules evolving by replicator dynamics.

desk verdict A plausible conceptual synthesis of MLS, Aoki, Ostrom, and Acemoglu for AI governance, but the central extended Price equation is asserted without derivation, so the promised quantitative metrics are ungrounded. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13616 v1 pith:NIRKZN7F submitted 2025-07-18 cs.HC cs.CYcs.ETcs.ITcs.MAmath.IT

Michael S. Harre This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.CYcs.ETcs.ITcs.MAmath.IT MSC 91A2292D15
keywords AIgovernancemulti-levelselectionPriceequationagentialinstitutionaleconomicsevolutionarygametheoryalignmentpolycentric
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to give AI governance a quantitative evolutionary footing. When firms operate with a mix of human and agential AI, it claims the change in average organizational performance can be decomposed by an extended multi-level Price equation into selection acting between groups, within human populations, within AI populations, and across human-AI interaction pairs. Institutional rules enter the framework as transformations of game payoff matrices, and rule configurations are themselves selected by replicator dynamics: a rule survives when the equilibrium performance it generates outweighs its implementation and enforcement costs. If the framework is right, governance is no longer only a design question—it becomes a measurable evolutionary process, and analysts could attribute changes in firm performance to specific selection channels and compare institutional designs side by side.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the extended multi-level Price equation over nested games (Equation 2), which adds human-AI cross-covariance terms to the standard between-group and within-group decomposition. It is paired with a replicator equation over institutional rule configurations, where a rule's fitness is $V_j = f_j(\pi^*_j) - c_j$, with $f_j$ combining average human equilibrium payoff, average AI equilibrium payoff, and the human-AI covariance, and $c_j$ the rule's monitoring, enforcement, coordination, and adaptation costs. Micro-level behavior is fixed by an institutional equilibrium in which each agent's strategy is optimal against beliefs that are themselves shaped by the shared rule structure. The graduated-sanctions example shows the proposed mechanism in miniature: when the alignment parameter satisfies $\lambda k_i > 1$, defection becomes strictly dominated, converting the Prisoner's Dilemma into a coordination game and demonstrating how institutional memory modifies selection pressures.

What would settle it

Take a simulated or real organization, measure each human and AI agent's fitness and performance at two time points, compute the between-group, within-human, within-AI, and weighted cross-agent covariance terms using interaction weights $\omega_{h,ai}$, and compare their sum with the directly observed change in mean performance; if a systematic residual remains—especially one traceable to within-pair interaction products—the extended decomposition in Equation (2) does not close and the cross-terms are not, by themselves, a valid accounting of organizational change.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that institutional governance of agential AI can be treated as a nested evolutionary process. The extended Price equation (Equation 2) states that the weighted change in average organizational performance equals the between-group covariance of group fitness and performance, plus the expected within-group covariances for human agents and for AI agents, plus two cross-agent covariance terms: one linking human fitness with AI performance and one linking AI fitness with human performance. The cross-terms are argued to be irreducible and to capture complementarity or substitution between humans and algorithms. Institutional rules are then modeled as alignment operators that transform baseline payoff matrices, and rule configurations evolve by replicator dynamics with fitness equal to equilibrium performance minus implementation cost. The paper concludes that selection and governance co-determine economic outcomes, expressible in equations that can in principle be measured and compared.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two cross-agent covariance terms in Equation (2) belong in a Price-equation decomposition of the change in average organizational performance, meaning the covariance of one type's fitness with the other type's performance is a genuine selection term—but the paper does not derive these terms from Equation (1) nor specify how human fitness depends on AI traits and vice versa.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every candidate rule set becomes a transformed payoff matrix $\Pi_j = T_j(\Pi_0)$, and its viability is ranked by $V_j = f_j(\pi^*_j) - c_j$, turning institutional design debates into direct replicator-dynamics comparisons.
  • The extended Price equation splits organizational change into separate channels, so a firm can attribute a performance shift to between-group competition, human selection, AI selection, or human-AI interaction effects rather than treating them as one undifferentiated outcome.
  • Graduated sanctions with $\lambda k_i > 1$ convert the Prisoner's Dilemma into a game where cooperation is strictly dominant, showing how institutional memory alone can enforce alignment.
  • The design principles act on specific covariance terms—monitoring and graduated sanctions can make poor performance negatively covary with fitness, while collective-choice arrangements can strengthen the human-AI complementarity term—so governance interventions have predicted signatures in the decomposition.
  • Inclusive institutions should strengthen between-group selection and positive human-AI cross-covariance, whereas extractive institutions concentrate selection within groups; the paper reads the algorithmic trading, automated scheduling, internet-governance, and lobster-fishery cases as evidence of these dynamics.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference (not in the paper): the sign and magnitude of the two cross-agent covariance terms in Equation (2) could be read as a continuous alignment metric for a firm, signalling misalignment even when within-type selection looks healthy, provided organizations log interaction weights $\omega_{h,ai}$ between employees and deployed AI systems.
  • Inference (not in the paper): the cost-benefit structure $V_j = f_j(\pi^*_j) - c_j$ predicts convergence to hybrid institutional structures—top-down constitutional rules layered with bottom-up local norms—under mixed human-AI workforces, because pure centralized sanctions carry high monitoring costs while pure peer rules diffuse slowly; agent-based simulations that vary $c_j$ and diffusion rates c
  • Inference (not in the paper): the framework implies that field experiments should deliberately pair high- and low-performing humans with better and worse AI tools, because that variation directly estimates the two cross-terms and reveals whether an organization should invest in complementarity or substitution.
  • Inference (not in the paper): by analogy with cross-species symbiosis, the cross-terms should rarely vanish in real organizations, so designing human and AI incentives separately will miss precisely the interaction that the paper identifies as driving organizational evolution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a unified framework for AI governance that combines multilevel selection theory, Aoki's view of firms as computational processes, and Ostrom's design principles. The central formal device is an extended Price equation (Eq. 2) that decomposes the change in average organizational performance into between-group selection, within-group human selection, within-group AI selection, and two cross-agent covariance terms. The paper then embeds this in a replicator-dynamics model for selecting among institutional rule configurations (Section 4), illustrates the approach with a graduated-sanctions prisoner's dilemma (Section 3), and offers four qualitative case studies plus policy recommendations. The worked example is mathematically sound, and the qualitative synthesis is broad, but the central equation is asserted without derivation and is not a standard consequence of the multilevel Price equation.

Significance. If the extended Price equation were a valid general decomposition, the framework would provide a genuinely useful quantitative language for analyzing human-AI co-evolution in organizations: it would let analysts separate between-group, within-human, within-AI, and cross-agent selection effects, and it would connect institutional design to evolutionary outcomes. The paper also gives proper attention to Ostrom's principles as mechanisms that reshape payoff structures, and the sanctioned-PD example correctly shows that λki > 1 makes defection strictly dominated. That example is a real, if modest, formal contribution. The broader significance, however, depends almost entirely on the unsupported Eq. (2), because the abstract's promised 'quantitative metrics' and the rule-comparison via replicator dynamics both rest on it.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1.2, Eq. (2)] The extended Price equation is asserted as an exact decomposition of wΔπ, but it is not derived from Eq. (1). In the standard multilevel Price equation, the within-group term is a covariance between an agent's own fitness and its own trait; partitioning the pooled within-group covariance by agent type gives within-category covariances plus a covariance of category means, not cross-covariances such as Cov(h,ai)(w_h, π_ai) and Cov(h,ai)(w_ai, π_h). Those cross terms can appear only under an explicit model in which the fitness of humans depends on the performance of AI agents and vice versa, with any additional terms or residuals accounted for. Appendix B, including Sections B.7-B.10, provides interpretations, causal stories, and computational formulas but never proves the equality. Because the abstract's 'quantitative metrics' and the Section 4 rule-comparison both depend on Eq. (2), the central formal claim of the paper is unsupported.
  2. [Section 4.2, Eqs. (5)-(7)] The fitness of a rule configuration is defined as Vj = fj(π*_j) − cj, with fj(π*_j) = απ*_h,j + βπ*_ai,j + γ Cov(π*_h, π*_ai). The coefficients α, β, γ are introduced without derivation, calibration, or an explicit argument that this particular linear-plus-covariance form is the correct mapping from agent-level equilibria to organizational fitness. The claimed feedback loop between the extended Price equation and the replicator dynamics is also asserted rather than established: no formal argument shows that the πg variables in Eq. (2) coincide with the equilibrium payoffs π* from Eq. (4). As a result, 'quantitative comparison among institutional rule sets' is not yet demonstrated; it is a research agenda.
  3. [Section 5] The section is introduced as 'two case studies' but actually presents four: algorithmic trading firms, Amazon's automated scheduling, ICANN, and Maine lobster fisheries. The later sentence 'Both cases validate...' is therefore ambiguous about which two cases are meant. This is a presentation problem, but it matters because the case-study section is offered as empirical support for the framework.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 6.1] The text contains an unresolved cross-reference 'Section ??'; the intended section should be identified.
  2. [Appendix C.4] The citation '[8 ? ]' is incomplete and should be resolved.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract ends with two consecutive sentences beginning 'We conclude...'; one of them should be rephrased.
  4. [Discussion, Section 8] The Discussion mentions 'healthcare organizations' as if they were a case study, but no healthcare case study appears in Section 5.
  5. [Section 4.1] The notation 'Πj = Tj(Π0)' is not used consistently: in Section 3 the sanctioned matrix is called Πs(k1, k2), while Section 4 refers to a generic rule j without defining the transformation Tj for the bottom-up strategies (tit-for-tat and win-stay, lose-switch).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Rule-fitness function Eq. (7) bakes in human–AI complementarity, so the replicator 'prediction' that complementarity-enhancing rules proliferate is true by construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, Eqs. (5)–(7), and the following paragraph]
    "The fitness of rule configuration j is given by: Vj = fj(π∗ j ) − cj ... The function fj maps the agent-level equilibrium outcomes under rule j into organizational fitness: fj(π∗ j ) = απ∗ h,j + βπ∗ ai,j + γ Cov(h,ai)∈gj (π∗ h, π∗ ai) (7) ... Rule configurations that promote high levels of cooperation and coordination—particularly those that effectively harness complementarities between humans and AI—will tend to proliferate in the population, provided their implementation costs do not outweigh the fitness advantages they confer."

    The replicator equation (5) makes the frequency rj of a rule configuration grow with its fitness Vj. Equation (7) defines Vj to include +γ Cov(h,ai)(π_h, π_ai) as a positive component of fj, so a rule set with larger human–AI complementarity automatically has higher fitness, all else equal. The replicator dynamics then necessarily increases its frequency. The conclusion that complementarity-enhancing rules proliferate is not an emergent result of the evolutionary framework; it is an assumption inserted directly into the definition of institutional fitness. The paper presents this as a finding of the framework, but it is equivalent to the chosen functional form by construction.

full rationale

The paper's main formal object, Eq. (2), is asserted as an exact decomposition of wΔπ with cross-agent covariance terms, and no derivation from Eq. (1) is provided. This is an unsupported derivation rather than a circular reduction, so I do not score it as circularity. The clearest circular-by-construction step is in Section 4.2: institutional fitness Vj is defined so that human–AI complementarity Cov(π_h, π_ai) enters with a positive coefficient γ, and the paper then announces that rule configurations harnessing human–AI complementarities will proliferate. That 'prediction' is forced by the definition of Vj and the replicator equation; it is an input presented as a conclusion. The self-citation to the author's own SSRN paper [71] is present but not load-bearing for the formal derivation, so it does not raise the score further. Overall, the central Price-equation claim retains independent content, but one significant 'prediction' reduces by construction, yielding partial circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The framework rests on the Price equation and replicator dynamics as standard tools, but the crucial extended Price equation (Eq. 2) is introduced as an assumption rather than derived; the free parameters λ, α, β, γ, ω are modeling constructs with no fitted or measured values.

free parameters (3)
  • λ (sanction severity)
    Free institutional severity parameter in the PD example (Section 3); conclusions depend on threshold λki > 1.
  • α, β, γ (fitness weights in Eq. 7)
    Weights mapping agent equilibrium payoffs and covariance to organizational fitness; no estimation is provided and qualitative conclusions depend on their signs.
  • ωh,ai (interaction weights in Eq. 14)
    Pairwise interaction weights in the computational implementation of covariances; not specified further.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Equation (2) is a valid decomposition of the change in average organizational performance.
    Introduced at Section 2.1.2 with no derivation from Eq. (1); the cross-covariance terms are not a standard part of the Price equation.
  • domain assumption Price equation (Eq. 1) applies to organizational performance with fitness and trait values defined at each level.
    Standard math theorem, but its mapping to firms and performance is assumed in Section 2.1.1.
  • domain assumption Well-mixed population of firms; replicator dynamics (Eq. 5) governs institutional rule frequencies.
    Section 4.2; spatial and network structure and mutation are ignored.
  • domain assumption Aoki's institutional equilibrium (Eq. 4): agents are optimal given beliefs µj about others' strategies under rule j.
    Section 4.1; this is a modeling assumption about equilibrium selection.
  • domain assumption Ostrom's eight design principles are applicable to human-AI institutions as alignment operators.
    Sections 2.4 and Appendix A; this extrapolation from common-pool resources to AI governance is asserted, not tested.
invented entities (1)
  • alignment operators / alignment parameters (λ, ki)
    purpose: Formal devices claimed to encode Ostrom's design principles in payoff matrices and to modulate selection covariances.
    These are conceptual constructs with no independent falsifiable prediction or measurement protocol.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Firms to Computation: AI Governance and the Evolution of Institutions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NIRKZN7F

@misc{pith2026250713616,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Firms to Computation: AI Governance and the Evolution of Institutions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NIRKZN7F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13616}
}
read the original abstract

The integration of agential artificial intelligence into socioeconomic systems requires us to reexamine the evolutionary processes that describe changes in our economic institutions. This article synthesizes three frameworks: multi-level selection theory, Aoki's view of firms as computational processes, and Ostrom's design principles for robust institutions. We develop a framework where selection operates concurrently across organizational levels, firms implement distributed inference via game-theoretic architectures, and Ostrom-style rules evolve as alignment mechanisms that address AI-related risks. This synthesis yields a multi-level Price equation expressed over nested games, providing quantitative metrics for how selection and governance co-determine economic outcomes. We examine connections to Acemoglu's work on inclusive institutions, analyze how institutional structures shape AI deployment, and demonstrate the framework's explanatory power via case studies. We conclude by proposing a set of design principles that operationalize alignment between humans and AI across institutional layers, enabling scalable, adaptive, and inclusive governance of agential AI systems. We conclude with practical policy recommendations and further research to extend these principles into real-world implementation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Replicator-Optimization Mechanism: A Scale-Relative Formalism for Persistence-Conditioned Dynamics with Application to Consent-Based Metaethics

    econ.TH 2026-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Known evolutionary dynamics are recast as a scale-relative kernel, and consent, legitimacy, and belief-transfer are mapped onto that kernel to generate conditional normative recommendations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Machine behaviour

    Iyad Rahwan, Manuel Cebrian, Nick Obradovich, Josh Bongard, Jean-Fran¸ cois Bon- nefon, Cynthia Breazeal, Jacob W Crandall, Nicholas A Christakis, Iain D Couzin, Matthew O Jackson, et al. Machine behaviour. Nature, 568(7753):477–486, 2019

    2019

  2. [2]

    Cooperating with machines

    Jacob W Crandall, Mayada Oudah, Tennom, Fatimah Ishowo-Oloko, Sherief Abdallah, Jean-Fran¸ cois Bonnefon, Manuel Cebrian, Azim Shariff, Michael A Goodrich, and Iyad Rahwan. Cooperating with machines. Nature communications, 9(1):233, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    Algorithmic management consequences for work organisation and work- ing conditions

    Alex J Wood. Algorithmic management consequences for work organisation and work- ing conditions. Technical report, JRC working papers series on labour, education and technology, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Arne Traulsen and Martin A. Nowak. Evolution of cooperation by multilevel selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 103(29):10952–10955, 2006

    2006

  5. [5]

    Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology

    David Sloan Wilson and Edward O Wilson. Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology. The Quarterly review of biology , 82(4):327–348, 2007

    2007

  6. [6]

    Corporations in evolving diversity: Cognition, governance, and institu- tions

    Masahiko Aoki. Corporations in evolving diversity: Cognition, governance, and institu- tions. Oxford University Press , 2010

    2010

  7. [7]

    Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action

    Elinor Ostrom. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, 1990

    1990

  8. [8]

    Understanding institutional diversity

    Elinor Ostrom. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, 2005

    2005

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    Nelson and Sidney G

    Richard R. Nelson and Sidney G. Winter. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press, 1982

    1982

  2. [10]

    Markus C. Becker. Organizational routines: a review of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(4):643–678, 2004

    2004

  3. [11]

    Evolution and the Levels of Selection

    Samir Okasha. Evolution and the Levels of Selection . Oxford University Press, 2006. 39

    2006

  4. [12]

    Eight criticisms not to make about group selection

    Omar Tonsi Eldakar and David Sloan Wilson. Eight criticisms not to make about group selection. Evolution, 65(6):1523–1526, 2011

    2011

  5. [13]

    A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution

    Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis. A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution. Princeton University Press, 2011

    2011

  6. [14]

    Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies

    Joseph Henrich, Robert Boyd, Samuel Bowles, Colin Camerer, Ernst Fehr, and Her- bert Gintis. Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies . Oxford University Press, 2004

    2004

  7. [15]

    Richerson and Robert Boyd

    Peter J. Richerson and Robert Boyd. Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution . University of Chicago Press, 2005

    2005

  8. [16]

    Richerson

    Robert Boyd and Peter J. Richerson. Culture and the Evolutionary Process . University of Chicago Press, 1985

    1985

  9. [17]

    The emergence of eukaryotes as an evolutionary algorithmic phase transition

    Enrique M Muro, Fernando J Ballesteros, Bartolo Luque, and Jordi Bascompte. The emergence of eukaryotes as an evolutionary algorithmic phase transition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 122(13):e2422968122, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Toward a Comparative Institutional Analysis

    Masahiko Aoki. Toward a Comparative Institutional Analysis . MIT Press, 2001

    2001

  11. [19]

    Jennings

    Nicholas R. Jennings. Coordination techniques for distributed artificial intelligence. Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence , pages 187–210, 1996

    1996

  12. [20]

    An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems

    Michael Wooldridge. An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems. John Wiley & Sons, 2009

    2009

  13. [22]

    Harms of AI

    Daron Acemoglu. Harms of AI. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Re- search, 2021

    2021

  14. [23]

    George R. Price. Extension of covariance selection mathematics. Annals of Human Genetics, 35(4):485–490, 1972

    1972

  15. [24]

    The price equation and the unity of social evolution theory

    Jussi Lehtonen. The price equation and the unity of social evolution theory. Philosoph- ical Transactions of the Royal Society B , 375(1797):20190362, 2020

    2020

  16. [25]

    The price equation and the causal analysis of evolu- tionary change

    Samir Okasha and Jun Otsuka. The price equation and the causal analysis of evolu- tionary change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 375(1797):20190365, 2020

    2020

  17. [26]

    The evolution of altruistic behavior

    William D Hamilton. The evolution of altruistic behavior. The American Naturalist , 97(896):354–356, 1963

    1963

  18. [27]

    Endogenizing institutions and institutional changes

    Masahiko Aoki. Endogenizing institutions and institutional changes. Journal of insti- tutional economics, 3(1):1–31, 2007. 40

    2007

  19. [28]

    Douglass C. North. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cam- bridge University Press, 1990

    1990

  20. [29]

    Understanding the process of economic change

    Douglass C North. Understanding the process of economic change. In Understanding the process of economic change . Princeton university press, 2010

    2010

  21. [30]

    What can machines learn, and what does it mean for occupations and the economy? AEA Papers and Proceedings, 107:43–47, 2017

    Erik Brynjolfsson and Tom Mitchell. What can machines learn, and what does it mean for occupations and the economy? AEA Papers and Proceedings, 107:43–47, 2017

    2017

  22. [31]

    North, John Joseph Wallis, and Barry R

    Douglass C. North, John Joseph Wallis, and Barry R. Weingast. Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History. Cambridge University Press, 2009

    2009

  23. [32]

    MIT press, 1997

    J¨ orgen W Weibull.Evolutionary game theory . MIT press, 1997

    1997

  24. [33]

    Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control

    Stuart Russell. Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control . Viking, 2019

    2019

  25. [34]

    Design principles of robust property-rights institutions: what have we learned

    Elinor Ostrom. Design principles of robust property-rights institutions: what have we learned. Elinor Ostrom and the Bloomington school of political economy: Resource governance, 2:215–248, 2008

    2008

  26. [35]

    Generalizing the core design principles for the efficacy of groups

    David Sloan Wilson, Elinor Ostrom, and Michael E Cox. Generalizing the core design principles for the efficacy of groups. Journal of economic behavior & organization , 90:S21–S32, 2013

    2013

  27. [36]

    Social niche construction and evolutionary transitions in individuality

    Paul A Ryan, Simon T Powers, and Richard A Watson. Social niche construction and evolutionary transitions in individuality. Biology & philosophy , 31:59–79, 2016

    2016

  28. [37]

    An introduction to niche construction theory

    Kevin Laland, Blake Matthews, and Marcus W Feldman. An introduction to niche construction theory. Evolutionary ecology, 30:191–202, 2016

    2016

  29. [38]

    A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the prisoner’s dilemma game

    Martin Nowak and Karl Sigmund. A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the prisoner’s dilemma game. Nature, 364(6432):56–58, 1993

    1993

  30. [39]

    Institutions and the path to the modern economy: Lessons from medieval trade

    Avner Greif. Institutions and the path to the modern economy: Lessons from medieval trade. Cambridge University Press, 2006

    2006

  31. [40]

    Taylor and Leo B

    Peter D. Taylor and Leo B. Jonker. Evolutionary stable strategies and game dynamics. Mathematical Biosciences, 40(1-2):145–156, 1978

    1978

  32. [41]

    Evolutionary games and population dynamics

    Josef Hofbauer and Karl Sigmund. Evolutionary games and population dynamics . Cam- bridge University Press, 1998

    1998

  33. [42]

    Transaction-cost economics: the governance of contractual rela- tions

    Oliver E Williamson. Transaction-cost economics: the governance of contractual rela- tions. The journal of Law and Economics , 22(2):233–261, 1979

    1979

  34. [43]

    Outsourcing: Transaction cost economics and supply chain man- agement

    Oliver E Williamson. Outsourcing: Transaction cost economics and supply chain man- agement. Journal of supply chain management , 44(2):5–16, 2008. 41

    2008

  35. [44]

    The economic institutions of capitalism

    Oliver E Williamson. The economic institutions of capitalism . Free Press, 1985

    1985

  36. [45]

    Tit for tat in heterogeneous populations

    Martin A Nowak and Karl Sigmund. Tit for tat in heterogeneous populations. Nature, 355(6357):250–253, 1992

    1992

  37. [46]

    Tit for tat in sticklebacks and the evolution of cooperation

    Manfred Milinski. Tit for tat in sticklebacks and the evolution of cooperation. nature, 325(6103):433–435, 1987

    1987

  38. [47]

    The Evolution of Cooperation

    Robert Axelrod. The Evolution of Cooperation . Basic Books, New York, 1984

    1984

  39. [48]

    What makes circuit breakers attractive to financial markets? A survey

    Yong H Kim and J Jimmy Yang. What makes circuit breakers attractive to financial markets? A survey. Financial Markets, Institutions & Instruments , 13(3):109–146, 2004

    2004

  40. [49]

    Lessons from the flash crash for the regulation of high-frequency traders

    Edgar Ortega Barrales. Lessons from the flash crash for the regulation of high-frequency traders. Fordham J. Corp. & Fin. L. , 17:1195, 2012

    2012

  41. [50]

    Moore’s law versus murphy’s law: Algorithmic trading and its discontents

    Andrei A Kirilenko and Andrew W Lo. Moore’s law versus murphy’s law: Algorithmic trading and its discontents. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 27(2):51–72, 2013

    2013

  42. [51]

    Punctuated-equilibrium theory: explaining stability and change in public policymaking

    James L True, Bryan D Jones, and Frank R Baumgartner. Punctuated-equilibrium theory: explaining stability and change in public policymaking. In Theories of the Policy Process, Second Edition, pages 155–187. Routledge, 2019

    2019

  43. [52]

    Kyle, Mehrdad Samadi, and Tugkan Tuzun

    Andrei Kirilenko, Albert S. Kyle, Mehrdad Samadi, and Tugkan Tuzun. The flash crash: High-frequency trading in an electronic market. The Journal of Finance, 72(3):967–998, 2017

    2017

  44. [53]

    The high-frequency trading arms race: Frequent batch auctions as a market design response

    Eric Budish, Peter Cramton, and John Shim. The high-frequency trading arms race: Frequent batch auctions as a market design response. The Quarterly Journal of Eco- nomics, 130(4):1547–1621, 2015

    2015

  45. [54]

    How Amazon automatically tracks and fires warehouse workers for ‘pro- ductivity’

    Colin Lecher. How Amazon automatically tracks and fires warehouse workers for ‘pro- ductivity’. The Verge, April 2019

    2019

  46. [55]

    The amazon that customers don’t see

    Jodi Kantor, Karen Weise, and Grace Ashford. The amazon that customers don’t see. The New York Times , 2021

    2021

  47. [56]

    Legitimacy in multistake- holder global governance at icann

    Jan Aart Scholte, Magdalena Bexell, and Angel Kovachev. Legitimacy in multistake- holder global governance at icann. Global Governance, 27(2):298–324, 2021

    2021

  48. [57]

    Stewardship of iana functions transitions to global internet community, 2016

    ICANN. Stewardship of iana functions transitions to global internet community, 2016

    2016

  49. [58]

    The precursors of governance in the maine lobster fishery

    James Wilson, Li Yan, and Carl Wilson. The precursors of governance in the maine lobster fishery. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 104(39):15212–15217, 2007

    2007

  50. [59]

    Capturing the Commons: Devising Institutions to Manage the Maine Lobster Industry

    James M Acheson. Capturing the Commons: Devising Institutions to Manage the Maine Lobster Industry. University Press of New England, 2003. 42

    2003

  51. [60]

    Don’t fence me in: Boundaries, policy, and deliberation in maine’s lobster commons

    Jennifer F Brewer. Don’t fence me in: Boundaries, policy, and deliberation in maine’s lobster commons. Annals of the American Association of Geographers , 102(2):383–402, 2012

    2012

  52. [61]

    Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems

    Elinor Ostrom. Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3):641–672, 2010

    2010

  53. [62]

    Stiglitz

    Anton Korinek and Joseph E. Stiglitz. Artificial intelligence and its implications for income distribution and unemployment. The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda, pages 349–390, 2021

    2021

  54. [63]

    Microeconomics: Behavior, Institutions, and Evolution

    Samuel Bowles. Microeconomics: Behavior, Institutions, and Evolution . Princeton University Press, 2004

    2004

  55. [64]

    The secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution, domesticating our species, and making us smarter

    Joseph Henrich. The secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution, domesticating our species, and making us smarter. Princeton University Press , 2015

    2015

  56. [65]

    Hayes, Anthony Biglan, and Dennis D

    David Sloan Wilson, Steven C. Hayes, Anthony Biglan, and Dennis D. Embry. Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 37(4):395–416, 2014

    2014

  57. [66]

    Power and progress: Our thousand-year struggle over technology and prosperity

    Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson. Power and progress: Our thousand-year struggle over technology and prosperity. 2023. Chapter on AI and power concentration

    2023

  58. [67]

    The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power

    Shoshana Zuboff. The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power . PublicAffairs, New York, 2019

    2019

  59. [68]

    Brian Arthur

    W. Brian Arthur. Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy. University of Michigan Press, 1994

    1994

  60. [69]

    Redesigning AI: Work, Democracy and Justice in the Age of Automa- tion

    Daron Acemoglu. Redesigning AI: Work, Democracy and Justice in the Age of Automa- tion. Boston Review/MIT Press, 2021

    2021

  61. [70]

    Robinson

    Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty . Crown Business, 2012

    2012

  62. [71]

    Michael S. Harr´ e. Responsible AI Integration into Research Practice. https://ssrn. com/abstract=5337355, July 2025. SSRN Working Paper No. 5337355

    2025

  63. [72]

    Artisanship and artifact

    Vincent Ostrom. Artisanship and artifact. Public Administration Review , 40(4):309– 317, 1980

    1980

  64. [73]

    Multi-level governance and resilience of social- ecological systems

    Elinor Ostrom and Marco A Janssen. Multi-level governance and resilience of social- ecological systems. Globalisation, poverty and conflict , 239, 2004

    2004

  65. [74]

    Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances

    J Richard Hackman. Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances . Harvard Business Press, 2002

    2002

  66. [75]

    Steven A. Frank. Foundations of Social Evolution . Princeton University Press, 1998. 43

    1998

  67. [76]

    The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables

    Edward H Simpson. The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) , 13(2):238–241, 1951

    1951

  68. [77]

    Status: Insights from organizational sociology

    Michael Sauder, Freda Lynn, and Joel M Podolny. Status: Insights from organizational sociology. Annual Review of Sociology , 38(1):267–283, 2012

    2012

  69. [78]

    Attitudes towards the high achiever: The fall of the tall poppy

    Norman T Feather. Attitudes towards the high achiever: The fall of the tall poppy. Australian Journal of Psychology , 41(3):239–267, 1989

    1989

  70. [79]

    Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital

    Ronald S Burt. Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital . Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2005

    2005

  71. [80]

    James G. March. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1):71–87, 1991

    1991

  72. [81]

    Why are there still so many jobs? the history and future of workplace automation

    David H Autor. Why are there still so many jobs? the history and future of workplace automation. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 29(3):3–30, 2015

    2015

  73. [82]

    Artificial intelligence and economic growth

    Philippe Aghion, Benjamin F Jones, and Charles I Jones. Artificial intelligence and economic growth. NBER Working Paper , (23928), 2017

    2017

  74. [83]

    Cooperative inverse reinforcement learning

    Dylan Hadfield-Menell, Stuart J Russell, Pieter Abbeel, and Anca Dragan. Cooperative inverse reinforcement learning. Advances in neural information processing systems , 29, 2016

    2016

  75. [84]

    Human-machine collaboration in data science

    Hugh J Wilson and Paul R Daugherty. Human-machine collaboration in data science. Harvard Business Review , 95(1):96–104, 2017

    2017

  76. [85]

    Machine, platform, crowd: Harnessing our digital future

    Andrew McAfee and Erik Brynjolfsson. Machine, platform, crowd: Harnessing our digital future. W. W. Norton & Company, 2017

    2017

  77. [86]

    The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies

    Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee. The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. Foreign Affairs, 93(3):2–8, 2014

    2014

  78. [87]

    Network analysis in the social sciences

    Stephen P Borgatti, Ajay Mehra, Daniel J Brass, and Giuseppe Labianca. Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916):892–895, 2009

    2009

  79. [88]

    The economics of modern manufacturing: Technology, strategy, and organization

    Paul Milgrom and John Roberts. The economics of modern manufacturing: Technology, strategy, and organization. The American Economic Review , pages 511–528, 1990

    1990

  80. [89]

    Host-symbiont conflict over the mixing of symbiotic lineages

    Steven A Frank. Host-symbiont conflict over the mixing of symbiotic lineages. Proceed- ings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences , 263(1368):339–344, 1996

    1996

  81. [90]

    The geographic mosaic of coevolution

    John N Thompson. The geographic mosaic of coevolution. University of Chicago Press, 2005. 44

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.