-
Do LLMs trust AI regulation? Emerging behaviour of game-theoretic LLM agents
Authors:
Alessio Buscemi,
Daniele Proverbio,
Paolo Bova,
Nataliya Balabanova,
Adeela Bashir,
Theodor Cimpeanu,
Henrique Correia da Fonseca,
Manh Hong Duong,
Elias Fernandez Domingos,
Antonio M. Fernandes,
Marcus Krellner,
Ndidi Bianca Ogbo,
Simon T. Powers,
Fernando P. Santos,
Zia Ush Shamszaman,
Zhao Song,
Alessandro Di Stefano,
The Anh Han
Abstract:
There is general agreement that fostering trust and cooperation within the AI development ecosystem is essential to promote the adoption of trustworthy AI systems. By embedding Large Language Model (LLM) agents within an evolutionary game-theoretic framework, this paper investigates the complex interplay between AI developers, regulators and users, modelling their strategic choices under different…
▽ More
There is general agreement that fostering trust and cooperation within the AI development ecosystem is essential to promote the adoption of trustworthy AI systems. By embedding Large Language Model (LLM) agents within an evolutionary game-theoretic framework, this paper investigates the complex interplay between AI developers, regulators and users, modelling their strategic choices under different regulatory scenarios. Evolutionary game theory (EGT) is used to quantitatively model the dilemmas faced by each actor, and LLMs provide additional degrees of complexity and nuances and enable repeated games and incorporation of personality traits. Our research identifies emerging behaviours of strategic AI agents, which tend to adopt more "pessimistic" (not trusting and defective) stances than pure game-theoretic agents. We observe that, in case of full trust by users, incentives are effective to promote effective regulation; however, conditional trust may deteriorate the "social pact". Establishing a virtuous feedback between users' trust and regulators' reputation thus appears to be key to nudge developers towards creating safe AI. However, the level at which this trust emerges may depend on the specific LLM used for testing. Our results thus provide guidance for AI regulation systems, and help predict the outcome of strategic LLM agents, should they be used to aid regulation itself.
△ Less
Submitted 11 April, 2025;
originally announced April 2025.
-
Media and responsible AI governance: a game-theoretic and LLM analysis
Authors:
Nataliya Balabanova,
Adeela Bashir,
Paolo Bova,
Alessio Buscemi,
Theodor Cimpeanu,
Henrique Correia da Fonseca,
Alessandro Di Stefano,
Manh Hong Duong,
Elias Fernandez Domingos,
Antonio Fernandes,
The Anh Han,
Marcus Krellner,
Ndidi Bianca Ogbo,
Simon T. Powers,
Daniele Proverbio,
Fernando P. Santos,
Zia Ush Shamszaman,
Zhao Song
Abstract:
This paper investigates the complex interplay between AI developers, regulators, users, and the media in fostering trustworthy AI systems. Using evolutionary game theory and large language models (LLMs), we model the strategic interactions among these actors under different regulatory regimes. The research explores two key mechanisms for achieving responsible governance, safe AI development and ad…
▽ More
This paper investigates the complex interplay between AI developers, regulators, users, and the media in fostering trustworthy AI systems. Using evolutionary game theory and large language models (LLMs), we model the strategic interactions among these actors under different regulatory regimes. The research explores two key mechanisms for achieving responsible governance, safe AI development and adoption of safe AI: incentivising effective regulation through media reporting, and conditioning user trust on commentariats' recommendation. The findings highlight the crucial role of the media in providing information to users, potentially acting as a form of "soft" regulation by investigating developers or regulators, as a substitute to institutional AI regulation (which is still absent in many regions). Both game-theoretic analysis and LLM-based simulations reveal conditions under which effective regulation and trustworthy AI development emerge, emphasising the importance of considering the influence of different regulatory regimes from an evolutionary game-theoretic perspective. The study concludes that effective governance requires managing incentives and costs for high quality commentaries.
△ Less
Submitted 12 March, 2025;
originally announced March 2025.
-
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 Public Joint Commitment and Reputation Solve the Prisoner's Dilemma
Authors:
Marcus Krellner,
The Anh Han
Abstract:
To achieve common goals, we often use joint commitments. Our commitment helps us to coordinate with our partners and assures them that their cooperative efforts will benefit themselves. However, if one of us can exploit the other's cooperation (as in the Prisoner's Dilemma), our commitment appears less useful. It cannot remove the temptation for our partners to exploit us. Using methods from evolu…
▽ More
To achieve common goals, we often use joint commitments. Our commitment helps us to coordinate with our partners and assures them that their cooperative efforts will benefit themselves. However, if one of us can exploit the other's cooperation (as in the Prisoner's Dilemma), our commitment appears less useful. It cannot remove the temptation for our partners to exploit us. Using methods from evolutionary game theory, we study the function of joint commitments in the Prisoner's Dilemma. We propose a reputation system akin to indirect reciprocity, wherein agents observe interactions even when not directly involved. They judge cooperation as good and defection as bad, but, crucially, only if the parties involved had committed to cooperate. This results in stable cooperation even though judgments are made privately, which had been a weakness in previous models of indirect reciprocity. Our work shows that joint commitments have utility beyond coordination problems, which could explain their prevalence. The proposed link between joint commitments and reputation could also explain why some joint commitments are pointedly public, like wedding vows. A reputation-based mechanism might have been particularly relevant in our distant past, in which no institutions existed to enforce commitments.
△ Less
Submitted 19 February, 2025; v1 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.
