Committing to the wrong artificial delegate in a collective-risk dilemma is better than directly committing mistakes.

While autonomous artificial agents are assumed to perfectly execute the strategies they are programmed with, humans who design them may make mistakes. These mistakes may lead to a misalignment between the humans' intended goals and their agents' observed behavior, a problem of value alignment. Such an alignment problem may have particularly strong consequences when these autonomous systems are used in social contexts that involve some form of collective risk. By means of an evolutionary game theoretical model, we investigate whether errors in the configuration of artificial agents change the outcome of a collective-risk dilemma, in comparison to a scenario with no delegation. Delegation is here distinguished from no-delegation simply by the moment at which a mistake occurs: either when programming/choosing the agent (in case of delegation) or when executing the actions at each round of the game (in case of no-delegation). We find that, while errors decrease success rate, it is better to delegate and commit to a somewhat flawed strategy, perfectly executed by an autonomous agent, than to commit execution errors directly. Our model also shows that in the long-term, delegation strategies should be favored over no-delegation, if given the choice.

The art of compensation: How hybrid teams solve collective-risk dilemmas.

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 artificial agents in our social interactions affect this cooperative capacity. In a 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. In our model, we consider a hybrid population composed of both adaptive and fixed behavior agents. The latter serve as proxies for the machine-like behavior of artificially intelligent agents who implement stochastic strategies previously learned offline. We observe that the adaptive individuals adjust their behavior in function of the presence of artificial agents in their groups to compensate their cooperative (or lack of thereof) efforts. We also find that risk plays a determinant role when assessing whether or not we should form hybrid teams to tackle a collective risk dilemma. When the risk of collective disaster is high, cooperation in the adaptive population falls dramatically in the presence of cooperative artificial agents. A story of compensation, rather than cooperation, where adaptive agents have to secure group success when the artificial agents are not cooperative enough, but will rather not cooperate if the others do so. On the contrary, when risk of collective disaster is low, success is highly improved while cooperation levels within the adaptive population remain the same. Artificial agents can improve the collective success of hybrid teams. However, their application requires a true risk assessment of the situation in order to actually benefit the adaptive population (i.e. the humans) in the long-term.

Delegation to artificial agents fosters prosocial behaviors in the collective risk dilemma.

Home assistant chat-bots, self-driving cars, drones or automated negotiation systems 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 non-linear public goods dilemma with uncertain returns in which participants face a collective risk. Our aim is to understand experimentally whether the presence of autonomous agents has a positive or negative impact on social behaviour, equality and cooperation in such a dilemma. Our results show that cooperation and group success increases when participants delegate their actions to an artificial agent that plays on their behalf. Yet, this positive effect is less pronounced when humans interact in hybrid human-agent groups, where we mostly observe that humans in successful hybrid groups make higher contributions earlier in the game. Also, we show that participants wrongly believe that artificial agents will contribute less to the collective effort. In general, our results suggest that delegation to autonomous agents has the potential to work as commitment devices, which prevent both the temptation to deviate to an alternate (less collectively good) course of action, as well as limiting responses based on betrayal aversion.