-
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.
-
Evolutionary mechanisms that promote cooperation may not promote social welfare
Authors:
The Anh Han,
Manh Hong Duong,
Matjaz Perc
Abstract:
Understanding the emergence of prosocial behaviours among self-interested individuals is an important problem in many scientific disciplines. Various mechanisms have been proposed to explain the evolution of such behaviours, primarily seeking the conditions under which a given mechanism can induce highest levels of cooperation. As these mechanisms usually involve costs that alter individual payoff…
▽ More
Understanding the emergence of prosocial behaviours among self-interested individuals is an important problem in many scientific disciplines. Various mechanisms have been proposed to explain the evolution of such behaviours, primarily seeking the conditions under which a given mechanism can induce highest levels of cooperation. As these mechanisms usually involve costs that alter individual payoffs, it is however possible that aiming for highest levels of cooperation might be detrimental for social welfare -- the later broadly defined as the total population payoff, taking into account all costs involved for inducing increased prosocial behaviours. Herein, by comparatively analysing the social welfare and cooperation levels obtained from stochastic evolutionary models of two well-established mechanisms of prosocial behaviour, namely, peer and institutional incentives, we demonstrate exactly that. We show that the objectives of maximising cooperation levels and the objectives of maximising social welfare are often misaligned. We argue for the need of adopting social welfare as the main optimisation objective when designing and implementing evolutionary mechanisms for social and collective goods.
△ Less
Submitted 11 September, 2024; v1 submitted 9 August, 2024;
originally announced August 2024.
