Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2410.03724 v3 pith:CW5E6BQW submitted 2024-09-29 cs.HC cs.AIcs.GTecon.GNq-fin.EC

classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.GTecon.GNq-fin.EC
keywords agentscooperationfairsocialhumanpenaltychallengehumans
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
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.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. From Digital Distrust to Codified Honesty: Experimental Evidence on Generative AI in Credence Goods Markets

    econ.GN 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    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.

  2. Large Language Models are Near-Optimal Decision-Makers with a Non-Human Learning Behavior

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across uncertainty, risk, and set-shifting tasks, LLMs generally outperformed humans and neared optimality while exhibiting distinctly non-human decision-making processes.

Pith tools