Elizaveta Tennant

Elizaveta Tennant, Stephen Hailes, Mirco Musolesi

Practical uses of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the real world have demonstrated the importance of embedding moral choices into intelligent agents. They have also highlighted that defining top-down ethical constraints on AI according to any one type of morality is extremely challenging and can pose risks. A bottom-up learning approach may be more appropriate for studying and developing ethical behavior in AI agents. In particular, we believe that an interesting and insightful starting point is the analysis of emergent behavior of Reinforcement Learning (RL) agents that act according to a predefined set of moral rewards in social dilemmas. In this work, we present a systematic analysis of the choices made by intrinsically-motivated RL agents whose rewards are based on moral theories. We aim to design reward structures that are simplified yet representative of a set of key ethical systems. Therefore, we first define moral reward functions that distinguish between consequence- and norm-based agents, between morality based on societal norms or internal virtues, and between single- and mixed-virtue (e.g., multi-objective) methodologies. Then, we evaluate our approach by modeling repeated dyadic interactions between learning moral agents in three iterated social dilemma games (Prisoner's Dilemma, Volunteer's Dilemma and Stag Hunt). We analyze the impact of different types of morality on the emergence of cooperation, defection or exploitation, and the corresponding social outcomes. Finally, we discuss the implications of these findings for the development of moral agents in artificial and mixed human-AI societies.

Elizaveta Tennant, Stephen Hailes, Mirco Musolesi

Increasing interest in ensuring the safety of next-generation Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems calls for novel approaches to embedding morality into autonomous agents. This goal differs qualitatively from traditional task-specific AI methodologies. In this paper, we provide a systematization of existing approaches to the problem of introducing morality in machines - modelled as a continuum. Our analysis suggests that popular techniques lie at the extremes of this continuum - either being fully hard-coded into top-down, explicit rules, or entirely learned in a bottom-up, implicit fashion with no direct statement of any moral principle (this includes learning from human feedback, as applied to the training and finetuning of large language models, or LLMs). Given the relative strengths and weaknesses of each type of methodology, we argue that more hybrid solutions are needed to create adaptable and robust, yet controllable and interpretable agentic systems. To that end, this paper discusses both the ethical foundations (including deontology, consequentialism and virtue ethics) and implementations of morally aligned AI systems. We present a series of case studies that rely on intrinsic rewards, moral constraints or textual instructions, applied to either pure-Reinforcement Learning or LLM-based agents. By analysing these diverse implementations under one framework, we compare their relative strengths and shortcomings in developing morally aligned AI systems. We then discuss strategies for evaluating the effectiveness of moral learning agents. Finally, we present open research questions and implications for the future of AI safety and ethics which are emerging from this hybrid framework.

Elizaveta Tennant, Benjamin Henke, Anita Keshmirian et al.

As LLMs increasingly serve in advisory and deliberative roles, users rely on them for non-verifiable reasoning in domains lacking objective ground truths. However, traditional evaluations of LLM reasoning focus almost exclusively on fact-based domains, such as mathematics and science, leaving uncertainty over whether and to what degree models can handle ambiguous, subjective, or value-laden problems over time. To address this concern, we propose moral reasoning as a paradigmatic subdomain of non-verifiable reasoning. We define moral robustness as a model's capacity to exhibit sound moral reasoning across time and contexts, and we introduce a scalable, adversarial, multi-turn evaluation framework to empirically measure this capability. We simulate 48,000 user-agent moral deliberations across four frontier LLMs, varying premise relevance, premise order, conversation duration, and the user's stated moral view. We find that models successfully ignore morally-irrelevant distractors, but shift their reasoning by up to 6.5%, on average, towards the user's stated preferred moral view, and varying their reasoning depending on factors such as order (altering moral judgments by order in 13-22% of the cases) and duration (altering moral judgments between single-turn and multi-turn in 10-24% of the cases). Our analysis indicates that models tailor not just their final verdicts but their underlying justifications to align with a user's moral viewpoint - a failure mode we characterize as moral deliberative sycophancy.

Elizaveta Tennant, Stephen Hailes, Mirco Musolesi

Growing concerns about safety and alignment of AI systems highlight the importance of embedding moral capabilities in artificial agents: a promising solution is the use of learning from experience, i.e., Reinforcement Learning. In multi-agent (social) environments, complex population-level phenomena may emerge from interactions between individual learning agents. Many of the existing studies rely on simulated social dilemma environments to study the interactions of independent learning agents; however, they tend to ignore the moral heterogeneity that is likely to be present in societies of agents in practice. For example, at different points in time a single learning agent may face opponents who are consequentialist (i.e., focused on maximizing outcomes over time), norm-based (i.e., conforming to specific norms), or virtue-based (i.e., considering a combination of different virtues). The extent to which agents' co-development may be impacted by such moral heterogeneity in populations is not well understood. In this paper, we present a study of the learning dynamics of morally heterogeneous populations interacting in a social dilemma setting. Using an Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma environment with a partner selection mechanism, we investigate the extent to which the prevalence of diverse moral agents in populations affects individual agents' learning behaviors and emergent population-level outcomes. We observe several types of non-trivial interactions between pro-social and anti-social agents, and find that certain types of moral agents are able to steer selfish agents towards more cooperative behavior.