Iyad Rahwan

Hiromu Yakura, Ezequiel Lopez-Lopez, Levin Brinkmann et al.

From the invention of writing and the printing press, to television and social media, human history is punctuated by major innovations in communication technology, which fundamentally altered how ideas spread and reshaped our culture. Recent chatbots powered by generative artificial intelligence constitute a novel medium that encodes cultural patterns in their neural representations and disseminates them in conversations with hundreds of millions of people. Understanding whether these patterns transmit into human language, and ultimately shape human culture, is a fundamental question. While fully quantifying the causal impact of a chatbot like ChatGPT on human culture is very challenging, lexicographic shift in human spoken communication may offer an early indicator of such broad phenomenon. Here, we apply econometric causal inference techniques to 740,249 hours of human discourse from 360,445 YouTube academic talks and 771,591 conversational podcast episodes across multiple disciplines. We detect a measurable and abrupt increase in the use of words preferentially generated by ChatGPT, such as delve, comprehend, boast, swift, and meticulous, after its release. These findings suggest a scenario where machines, originally trained on human data and subsequently exhibiting their own cultural traits, can, in turn, measurably reshape human culture. This marks the beginning of a closed cultural feedback loop in which cultural traits circulate bidirectionally between humans and machines. Our results motivate further research into the evolution of human-machine culture, and raise concerns over the erosion of linguistic and cultural diversity, and the risks of scalable manipulation.

Nils Köbis, Philipp Lorenz-Spreen, Tamer Ajaj et al.

The increasing prevalence of image-altering filters on social media and video conferencing technologies has raised concerns about the ethical and psychological implications of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to manipulate our perception of others. In this study, we specifically investigate the potential impact of blur filters, a type of appearance-altering technology, on individuals' behavior towards others. Our findings consistently demonstrate a significant increase in selfish behavior directed towards individuals whose appearance is blurred, suggesting that blur filters can facilitate moral disengagement through depersonalization. These results emphasize the need for broader ethical discussions surrounding AI technologies that modify our perception of others, including issues of transparency, consent, and the awareness of being subject to appearance manipulation by others. We also emphasize the importance of anticipatory experiments in informing the development of responsible guidelines and policies prior to the widespread adoption of such technologies.

Alicia von Schenk, Victor Klockmann, Jean-François Bonnefon et al.

People are not very good at detecting lies, which may explain why they refrain from accusing others of lying, given the social costs attached to false accusations - both for the accuser and the accused. Here we consider how this social balance might be disrupted by the availability of lie-detection algorithms powered by Artificial Intelligence. Will people elect to use lie detection algorithms that perform better than humans, and if so, will they show less restraint in their accusations? We built a machine learning classifier whose accuracy (67\%) was significantly better than human accuracy (50\%) in a lie-detection task and conducted an incentivized lie-detection experiment in which we measured participants' propensity to use the algorithm, as well as the impact of that use on accusation rates. We find that the few people (33\%) who elect to use the algorithm drastically increase their accusation rates (from 25\% in the baseline condition up to 86% when the algorithm flags a statement as a lie). They make more false accusations (18pp increase), but at the same time, the probability of a lie remaining undetected is much lower in this group (36pp decrease). We consider individual motivations for using lie detection algorithms and the social implications of these algorithms.

The Anh Han, Joel Z. Leibo, Tom Lenaerts et al.

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are rapidly becoming more capable, autonomous, and deeply embedded in social life. As humans increasingly interact, cooperate, and compete with AI, we move from purely human societies to hybrid human-AI societies whose collective dynamics cannot be captured by existing behavioural models alone. Drawing on evolutionary game theory, cultural evolution, and Large Language Models (LLMs) powered simulations, we argue that these developments open a new research agenda for social physics centred on the co-evolution of humans and machines. We outline six key research directions. First, modelling the evolutionary dynamics of social behaviours (e.g. cooperation, fairness, trust) in hybrid human-AI populations. Second, understanding machine culture: how AI systems generate, mediate, and select cultural traits. Third, analysing the co-evolution of language and behaviour when LLMs frame and participate in decisions. Fourth, studying the evolution of AI delegation: how responsibilities and control are negotiated between humans and machines. Fifth, formalising and comparing the distinct epistemic pipelines that generate human and AI behaviour. Sixth, modelling the co-evolution of AI development and regulation in a strategic ecosystem of firms, users, and institutions. Together, these directions define a programme for using social physics to anticipate and steer the societal impact of advanced AI.

Joel Z. Leibo, Alexander Sasha Vezhnevets, Manfred Diaz et al.

We propose a society-first theory of normative appropriateness where individuals, modeled as pre-trained actors with cognitive architectures analogous to Large Language Models (LLMs), generate behavior via predictive pattern completion. Our theory posits that individuals act by completing distributed symbolic patterns based on context, answering questions such as "What does a person such as I do in a situation such as this?". This sense-making mechanism provides a parsimonious account of the key features of human norms: their context-dependence, arbitrariness, automaticity, dynamism, and their support from social sanctioning. It challenges rational-choice theories of social norms by accounting for their key features without needing to exogenously posit scalar rewards or preference relations. By distinguishing between explicit norms, which we associate with in-context adaptation, and implicit norms, which we associate with long-term memory, the theory reconceptualizes several foundational ideas in cognitive science. In particular, it gives an alternative account to the data traditionally seen as supporting dual-process models, and it flips the role of rationality, allowing us to construe it as adherence to culturally-contingent justification standards.

Qiankun Zhong, Thomas F. Eisenmann, Julian Garcia et al.

Reliance on generative AI can reduce cultural variance and diversity, especially in creative work. This reduction in variance has already led to problems in model performance, including model collapse and hallucination. In this paper, we examine the long-term consequences of AI use for human cultural evolution and the conditions under which widespread AI use may lead to "cultural collapse", a process in which reliance on AI-generated content reduces human variation and innovation and slows cumulative cultural evolution. Using an agent-based model and evolutionary game theory, we compare two types of AI use: complement and substitute. AI-complement users seek suggestions and guidance while remaining the main producers of the final output, whereas AI-substitute users provide minimal input, and rely on AI to produce most of the output. We then study how these use strategies compete and spread under evolutionary dynamics. We find that AI-substitute users prevail under individual-level selection despite the stronger reduction in cultural variance. By contrast, AI-complement users can benefit their groups by maintaining the variance needed for exploration, and can therefore be favored under cultural group selection when group boundaries are strong. Overall, our findings shed light on the long-term, population-level effects of AI adoption and inform policy and organizational strategies to mitigate these risks.

Lewis Hammond, Alan Chan, Jesse Clifton et al. · stanford

The rapid development of advanced AI agents and the imminent deployment of many instances of these agents will give rise to multi-agent systems of unprecedented complexity. These systems pose novel and under-explored risks. In this report, we provide a structured taxonomy of these risks by identifying three key failure modes (miscoordination, conflict, and collusion) based on agents' incentives, as well as seven key risk factors (information asymmetries, network effects, selection pressures, destabilising dynamics, commitment problems, emergent agency, and multi-agent security) that can underpin them. We highlight several important instances of each risk, as well as promising directions to help mitigate them. By anchoring our analysis in a range of real-world examples and experimental evidence, we illustrate the distinct challenges posed by multi-agent systems and their implications for the safety, governance, and ethics of advanced AI.

Samuel G. B. Johnson, Amir-Hossein Karimi, Yoshua Bengio et al.

Although AI has become increasingly smart, its wisdom has not kept pace. In this article, we examine what is known about human wisdom and sketch a vision of its AI counterpart. We analyze human wisdom as a set of strategies for solving intractable problems-those outside the scope of analytic techniques-including both object-level strategies like heuristics [for managing problems] and metacognitive strategies like intellectual humility, perspective-taking, or context-adaptability [for managing object-level strategies]. We argue that AI systems particularly struggle with metacognition; improved metacognition would lead to AI more robust to novel environments, explainable to users, cooperative with others, and safer in risking fewer misaligned goals with human users. We discuss how wise AI might be benchmarked, trained, and implemented.

Joel Z. Leibo, Alexander Sasha Vezhnevets, Manfred Diaz et al.

What is appropriateness? Humans navigate a multi-scale mosaic of interlocking notions of what is appropriate for different situations. We act one way with our friends, another with our family, and yet another in the office. Likewise for AI, appropriate behavior for a comedy-writing assistant is not the same as appropriate behavior for a customer-service representative. What determines which actions are appropriate in which contexts? And what causes these standards to change over time? Since all judgments of AI appropriateness are ultimately made by humans, we need to understand how appropriateness guides human decision making in order to properly evaluate AI decision making and improve it. This paper presents a theory of appropriateness: how it functions in human society, how it may be implemented in the brain, and what it means for responsible deployment of generative AI technology.

Iyad Rahwan, Azim Shariff, Jean-François Bonnefon

Predicting the social and behavioral impact of future technologies, before they are achieved, would allow us to guide their development and regulation before these impacts get entrenched. Traditionally, this prediction has relied on qualitative, narrative methods. Here we describe a method which uses experimental methods to simulate future technologies, and collect quantitative measures of the attitudes and behaviors of participants assigned to controlled variations of the future. We call this method 'science fiction science'. We suggest that the reason why this method has not been fully embraced yet, despite its potential benefits, is that experimental scientists may be reluctant to engage in work facing such serious validity threats as science fiction science. To address these threats, we consider possible constraints on the kind of technology that science fiction science may study, as well as the unconventional, immersive methods that science fiction science may require. We seek to provide perspective on the reasons why this method has been marginalized for so long, what benefits it would bring if it could be built on strong yet unusual methods, and how we can normalize these methods to help the diverse community of science fiction scientists to engage in a virtuous cycle of validity improvement.

Thomas F. Eisenmann, Andres Karjus, Mar Canet Sola et al.

Novel capacities of generative AI to analyze and generate cultural artifacts raise inevitable questions about the nature and value of artistic education and human expertise. Has AI already leveled the playing field between professional artists and laypeople, or do trained artistic expressive capacity, curation skills and experience instead enhance the ability to use these new tools? In this pre-registered study, we conduct experimental comparisons between 50 active artists and a demographically matched sample of laypeople. We designed two tasks to approximate artistic practice for testing their capabilities in both faithful and creative image creation: replicating a reference image, and moving as far away as possible from it. We developed a bespoke platform where participants used a modern text-to-image model to complete both tasks. We also collected and compared participants' sentiments towards AI. On average, artists produced more faithful and creative outputs than their lay counterparts, although only by a small margin. While AI may ease content creation, professional expertise is still valuable - even within the confined space of generative AI itself. Finally, we also explored how well an exemplary vision-capable large language model (GPT-4o) would complete the same tasks, if given the role of an image generation agent, and found it performed on par in copying but outperformed even artists in the creative task. The very best results were still produced by humans in both tasks. These outcomes highlight the importance of integrating artistic skills with AI training to prepare artists and other visual professionals for a technologically evolving landscape. We see a potential in collaborative synergy with generative AI, which could reshape creative industries and education in the arts.

Fabian Baumann, Nipun Arora, Iyad Rahwan et al.

Intelligent algorithms increasingly shape the content we encounter and engage with online. TikTok's For You feed exemplifies extreme algorithm-driven curation, tailoring the stream of video content almost exclusively based on users' explicit and implicit interactions with the platform. Despite growing attention, the dynamics of content amplification on TikTok remain largely unquantified. How quickly, and to what extent, does TikTok's algorithm amplify content aligned with users' interests? To address these questions, we conduct a sock-puppet audit, deploying bots with different interests to engage with TikTok's "For You" feed. Our findings reveal that content aligned with the bots' interests undergoes strong amplification, with rapid reinforcement typically occurring within the first 200 videos watched. While amplification is consistently observed across all interests, its intensity varies by interest, indicating the emergence of topic-specific biases. Time series analyses and Markov models uncover distinct phases of recommendation dynamics, including persistent content reinforcement and a gradual decline in content diversity over time. Although TikTok's algorithm preserves some content diversity, we find a strong negative correlation between amplification and exploration: as the amplification of interest-aligned content increases, engagement with unseen hashtags declines. These findings contribute to discussions on socio-algorithmic feedback loops in the digital age and the trade-offs between personalization and content diversity.

Alejandro H. Artiles, Hiromu Yakura, Levin Brinkmann et al.

In open-ended domains like art, autonomous agents must generate ideas that are both original and internally coherent, yet current Large Language Models (LLMs) either default to familiar cultural patterns or sacrifice coherence when pushed toward novelty. We address this by introducing the Cultural Alien Sampler (CAS), a concept-selection method that explicitly separates compositional fit from cultural typicality. CAS uses two GPT-2 models fine-tuned on WikiArt concepts: a Concept Coherence Model that scores whether concepts plausibly co-occur within artworks, and a Cultural Context Model that estimates how typical those combinations are within individual artists' bodies of work. CAS targets combinations that are high in coherence and low in typicality, yielding ideas that maintain internal consistency while deviating from learned conventions and embedded cultural context. In a human evaluation (N = 100), our approach outperforms random selection and GPT-4o baselines and achieves performance comparable to human art students in both perceived originality and harmony. Additionally, a quantitative study shows that our method produces more diverse outputs and explores a broader conceptual space than its GPT-4o counterpart, demonstrating that artificial cultural alienness can unlock creative potential in autonomous agents.

Prateek Gupta, Qiankun Zhong, Hiromu Yakura et al.

A growing body of multi-agent studies with Large Language Models (LLMs) explores how norms and cooperation emerge in mixed-motive scenarios, where pursuing individual gain can undermine the collective good. While prior work has explored these dynamics in both richly contextualized simulations and simplified game-theoretic environments, most LLM systems featuring common-pool resource (CPR) games provide agents with explicit reward functions directly tied to their actions. In contrast, human cooperation often emerges without full visibility into payoffs and population, relying instead on heuristics, communication, and punishment. We introduce a CPR simulation framework that removes explicit reward signals and embeds cultural-evolutionary mechanisms: social learning (adopting strategies and beliefs from successful peers) and norm-based punishment, grounded in Ostrom's principles of resource governance. Agents also individually learn from the consequences of harvesting, monitoring, and punishing via environmental feedback, enabling norms to emerge endogenously. We establish the validity of our simulation by reproducing key findings from existing studies on human behavior. Building on this, we examine norm evolution across a $2\times2$ grid of environmental and social initialisations (resource-rich vs. resource-scarce; altruistic vs. selfish) and benchmark how agentic societies comprised of different LLMs perform under these conditions. Our results reveal systematic model differences in sustaining cooperation and norm formation, positioning the framework as a rigorous testbed for studying emergent norms in mixed-motive LLM societies. Such analysis can inform the design of AI systems deployed in social and organizational contexts, where alignment with cooperative norms is critical for stability, fairness, and effective governance of AI-mediated environments.

Raluca Rilla, Tobias Werner, Hiromu Yakura et al.

Online behavioural research faces an emerging threat as participants increasingly turn to large language models (LLMs) for advice, translation, or task delegation: LLM Pollution. We identify three interacting variants through which LLM Pollution threatens the validity and integrity of online behavioural research. First, Partial LLM Mediation occurs when participants make selective use of LLMs for specific aspects of a task, such as translation or wording support, leading researchers to (mis)interpret LLM-shaped outputs as human ones. Second, Full LLM Delegation arises when agentic LLMs complete studies with little to no human oversight, undermining the central premise of human-subject research at a more foundational level. Third, LLM Spillover signifies human participants altering their behaviour as they begin to anticipate LLM presence in online studies, even when none are involved. While Partial Mediation and Full Delegation form a continuum of increasing automation, LLM Spillover reflects second-order reactivity effects. Together, these variants interact and generate cascading distortions that compromise sample authenticity, introduce biases that are difficult to detect post hoc, and ultimately undermine the epistemic grounding of online research on human cognition and behaviour. Crucially, the threat of LLM Pollution is already co-evolving with advances in generative AI, creating an escalating methodological arms race. To address this, we propose a multi-layered response spanning researcher practices, platform accountability, and community efforts. As the challenge evolves, coordinated adaptation will be essential to safeguard methodological integrity and preserve the validity of online behavioural research.

Yaomin Jiang, Levin Brinkmann, Anne-Marie Nussberger et al.

Partner selection is crucial for cooperation and hinges on communication. As artificial agents, especially those powered by large language models (LLMs), become more autonomous, intelligent, and persuasive, they compete with humans for partnerships. Yet little is known about how humans select between human and AI partners and adapt under AI-induced competition pressure. We constructed a communication-based partner selection game and examined the dynamics in hybrid mini-societies of humans and bots powered by a state-of-the-art LLM. Through three experiments (N = 975), we found that bots, though more prosocial than humans and linguistically distinguishable, were not selected preferentially when their identity was hidden. Instead, humans misattributed bots' behaviour to humans and vice versa. Disclosing bots' identity induced a dual effect: it reduced bots' initial chances of being selected but allowed them to gradually outcompete humans by facilitating human learning about the behaviour of each partner type. These findings show how AI can reshape social interaction in mixed societies and inform the design of more effective and cooperative hybrid systems.

Alejandro Hernandez, Levin Brinkmann, Ignacio Serna et al.

While AI models have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in constrained domains like game strategy, their potential for genuine creativity in open-ended domains like art remains debated. We explore this question by examining how AI can transcend human cognitive limitations in visual art creation. Our research hypothesizes that visual art contains a vast unexplored space of conceptual combinations, constrained not by inherent incompatibility, but by cognitive limitations imposed by artists' cultural, temporal, geographical and social contexts. To test this hypothesis, we present the Alien Recombination method, a novel approach utilizing fine-tuned large language models to identify and generate concept combinations that lie beyond human cognitive availability. The system models and deliberately counteracts human availability bias, the tendency to rely on immediately accessible examples, to discover novel artistic combinations. This system not only produces combinations that have never been attempted before within our dataset but also identifies and generates combinations that are cognitively unavailable to all artists in the domain. Furthermore, we translate these combinations into visual representations, enabling the exploration of subjective perceptions of novelty. Our findings suggest that cognitive unavailability is a promising metric for optimizing artistic novelty, outperforming merely temperature scaling without additional evaluation criteria. This approach uses generative models to connect previously unconnected ideas, providing new insight into the potential of framing AI-driven creativity as a combinatorial problem.

Mengchen Dong, Jean-François Bonnefon, Iyad Rahwan

The deployment of AI systems for welfare benefit allocation allows for accelerated decision-making and faster provision of critical help, but has already led to an increase in unfair benefit denials and false fraud accusations. Collecting data in the US and the UK (N = 2449), we explore the public acceptability of such speed-accuracy trade-offs in populations of claimants and non-claimants. We observe a general willingness to trade off speed gains for modest accuracy losses, but this aggregate view masks notable divergences between claimants and non-claimants. Although welfare claimants comprise a relatively small proportion of the general population (e.g., 20% in the US representative sample), this vulnerable group is much less willing to accept AI deployed in welfare systems, raising concerns that solely using aggregate data for calibration could lead to policies misaligned with stakeholder preferences. Our study further uncovers asymmetric insights between claimants and non-claimants. The latter consistently overestimate claimant willingness to accept speed-accuracy trade-offs, even when financially incentivized for accurate perspective-taking. This suggests that policy decisions influenced by the dominant voice of non-claimants, however well-intentioned, may neglect the actual preferences of those directly affected by welfare AI systems. Our findings underline the need for stakeholder engagement and transparent communication in the design and deployment of these systems, particularly in contexts marked by power imbalances.

Edmond Awad, Sydney Levine, Andrea Loreggia et al.

One of the most remarkable things about the human moral mind is its flexibility. We can make moral judgments about cases we have never seen before. We can decide that pre-established rules should be broken. We can invent novel rules on the fly. Capturing this flexibility is one of the central challenges in developing AI systems that can interpret and produce human-like moral judgment. This paper details the results of a study of real-world decision makers who judge whether it is acceptable to break a well-established norm: ``no cutting in line.'' We gather data on how human participants judge the acceptability of line-cutting in a range of scenarios. Then, in order to effectively embed these reasoning capabilities into a machine, we propose a method for modeling them using a preference-based structure, which captures a novel modification to standard ``dual process'' theories of moral judgment.

Nils Köbis, Christopher Starke, Iyad Rahwan

Corruption continues to be one of the biggest societal challenges of our time. New hope is placed in Artificial Intelligence (AI) to serve as an unbiased anti-corruption agent. Ever more available (open) government data paired with unprecedented performance of such algorithms render AI the next frontier in anti-corruption. Summarizing existing efforts to use AI-based anti-corruption tools (AI-ACT), we introduce a conceptual framework to advance research and policy. It outlines why AI presents a unique tool for top-down and bottom-up anti-corruption approaches. For both approaches, we outline in detail how AI-ACT present different potentials and pitfalls for (a) input data, (b) algorithmic design, and (c) institutional implementation. Finally, we venture a look into the future and flesh out key questions that need to be addressed to develop AI-ACT while considering citizens' views, hence putting "society in the loop".

Ignacio Serna, Aythami Morales, Julian Fierrez et al.

We propose a discrimination-aware learning method to improve both accuracy and fairness of biased face recognition algorithms. The most popular face recognition benchmarks assume a distribution of subjects without paying much attention to their demographic attributes. In this work, we perform a comprehensive discrimination-aware experimentation of deep learning-based face recognition. We also propose a general formulation of algorithmic discrimination with application to face biometrics. The experiments include tree popular face recognition models and three public databases composed of 64,000 identities from different demographic groups characterized by gender and ethnicity. We experimentally show that learning processes based on the most used face databases have led to popular pre-trained deep face models that present a strong algorithmic discrimination. We finally propose a discrimination-aware learning method, Sensitive Loss, based on the popular triplet loss function and a sensitive triplet generator. Our approach works as an add-on to pre-trained networks and is used to improve their performance in terms of average accuracy and fairness. The method shows results comparable to state-of-the-art de-biasing networks and represents a step forward to prevent discriminatory effects by automatic systems.

Ignacio Serna, Aythami Morales, Julian Fierrez et al.

The most popular face recognition benchmarks assume a distribution of subjects without much attention to their demographic attributes. In this work, we perform a comprehensive discrimination-aware experimentation of deep learning-based face recognition. The main aim of this study is focused on a better understanding of the feature space generated by deep models, and the performance achieved over different demographic groups. We also propose a general formulation of algorithmic discrimination with application to face biometrics. The experiments are conducted over the new DiveFace database composed of 24K identities from six different demographic groups. Two popular face recognition models are considered in the experimental framework: ResNet-50 and VGG-Face. We experimentally show that demographic groups highly represented in popular face databases have led to popular pre-trained deep face models presenting strong algorithmic discrimination. That discrimination can be observed both qualitatively at the feature space of the deep models and quantitatively in large performance differences when applying those models in different demographic groups, e.g. for face biometrics.

Matthew Groh, Ziv Epstein, Nick Obradovich et al.

Recent advances in neural networks for content generation enable artificial intelligence (AI) models to generate high-quality media manipulations. Here we report on a randomized experiment designed to study the effect of exposure to media manipulations on over 15,000 individuals' ability to discern machine-manipulated media. We engineer a neural network to plausibly and automatically remove objects from images, and we deploy this neural network online with a randomized experiment where participants can guess which image out of a pair of images has been manipulated. The system provides participants feedback on the accuracy of each guess. In the experiment, we randomize the order in which images are presented, allowing causal identification of the learning curve surrounding participants' ability to detect fake content. We find sizable and robust evidence that individuals learn to detect fake content through exposure to manipulated media when provided iterative feedback on their detection attempts. Over a succession of only ten images, participants increase their rating accuracy by over ten percentage points. Our study provides initial evidence that human ability to detect fake, machine-generated content may increase alongside the prevalence of such media online.

Remi Mir, Bjarke Felbo, Nick Obradovich et al.

Research in the area of style transfer for text is currently bottlenecked by a lack of standard evaluation practices. This paper aims to alleviate this issue by experimentally identifying best practices with a Yelp sentiment dataset. We specify three aspects of interest (style transfer intensity, content preservation, and naturalness) and show how to obtain more reliable measures of them from human evaluation than in previous work. We propose a set of metrics for automated evaluation and demonstrate that they are more strongly correlated and in agreement with human judgment: direction-corrected Earth Mover's Distance, Word Mover's Distance on style-masked texts, and adversarial classification for the respective aspects. We also show that the three examined models exhibit tradeoffs between aspects of interest, demonstrating the importance of evaluating style transfer models at specific points of their tradeoff plots. We release software with our evaluation metrics to facilitate research.

Ziv Epstein, Blakeley H. Payne, Judy Hanwen Shen et al.

AI researchers employ not only the scientific method, but also methodology from mathematics and engineering. However, the use of the scientific method - specifically hypothesis testing - in AI is typically conducted in service of engineering objectives. Growing interest in topics such as fairness and algorithmic bias show that engineering-focused questions only comprise a subset of the important questions about AI systems. This results in the AI Knowledge Gap: the number of unique AI systems grows faster than the number of studies that characterize these systems' behavior. To close this gap, we argue that the study of AI could benefit from the greater inclusion of researchers who are well positioned to formulate and test hypotheses about the behavior of AI systems. We examine the barriers preventing social and behavioral scientists from conducting such studies. Our diagnosis suggests that accelerating the scientific study of AI systems requires new incentives for academia and industry, mediated by new tools and institutions. To address these needs, we propose a two-sided marketplace called TuringBox. On one side, AI contributors upload existing and novel algorithms to be studied scientifically by others. On the other side, AI examiners develop and post machine intelligence tasks designed to evaluate and characterize algorithmic behavior. We discuss this market's potential to democratize the scientific study of AI behavior, and thus narrow the AI Knowledge Gap.

Edmond Awad, Sydney Levine, Max Kleiman-Weiner et al.

When a semi-autonomous car crashes and harms someone, how are blame and causal responsibility distributed across the human and machine drivers? In this article, we consider cases in which a pedestrian was hit and killed by a car being operated under shared control of a primary and a secondary driver. We find that when only one driver makes an error, that driver receives the blame and is considered causally responsible for the harm, regardless of whether that driver is a machine or a human. However, when both drivers make errors in cases of shared control between a human and a machine, the blame and responsibility attributed to the machine is reduced. This finding portends a public under-reaction to the malfunctioning AI components of semi-autonomous cars and therefore has a direct policy implication: a bottom-up regulatory scheme (which operates through tort law that is adjudicated through the jury system) could fail to properly regulate the safety of shared-control vehicles; instead, a top-down scheme (enacted through federal laws) may be called for.

Abhimanyu Dubey, Esteban Moro, Manuel Cebrian et al.

The analysis of the creation, mutation, and propagation of social media content on the Internet is an essential problem in computational social science, affecting areas ranging from marketing to political mobilization. A first step towards understanding the evolution of images online is the analysis of rapidly modifying and propagating memetic imagery or `memes'. However, a pitfall in proceeding with such an investigation is the current incapability to produce a robust semantic space for such imagery, capable of understanding differences in Image Macros. In this study, we provide a first step in the systematic study of image evolution on the Internet, by proposing an algorithm based on sparse representations and deep learning to decouple various types of content in such images and produce a rich semantic embedding. We demonstrate the benefits of our approach on a variety of tasks pertaining to memes and Image Macros, such as image clustering, image retrieval, topic prediction and virality prediction, surpassing the existing methods on each. In addition to its utility on quantitative tasks, our method opens up the possibility of obtaining the first large-scale understanding of the evolution and propagation of memetic imagery.

Richard Kim, Max Kleiman-Weiner, Andres Abeliuk et al.

We introduce a new computational model of moral decision making, drawing on a recent theory of commonsense moral learning via social dynamics. Our model describes moral dilemmas as a utility function that computes trade-offs in values over abstract moral dimensions, which provide interpretable parameter values when implemented in machine-led ethical decision-making. Moreover, characterizing the social structures of individuals and groups as a hierarchical Bayesian model, we show that a useful description of an individual's moral values - as well as a group's shared values - can be inferred from a limited amount of observed data. Finally, we apply and evaluate our approach to data from the Moral Machine, a web application that collects human judgments on moral dilemmas involving autonomous vehicles.

Ritesh Noothigattu, Snehalkumar 'Neil' S. Gaikwad, Edmond Awad et al.

We present a general approach to automating ethical decisions, drawing on machine learning and computational social choice. In a nutshell, we propose to learn a model of societal preferences, and, when faced with a specific ethical dilemma at runtime, efficiently aggregate those preferences to identify a desirable choice. We provide a concrete algorithm that instantiates our approach; some of its crucial steps are informed by a new theory of swap-dominance efficient voting rules. Finally, we implement and evaluate a system for ethical decision making in the autonomous vehicle domain, using preference data collected from 1.3 million people through the Moral Machine website.

Wen Shen, Alanoud Al Khemeiri, Abdulla Almehrezi et al.

Highly automated robot ecologies (HARE), or societies of independent autonomous robots or agents, are rapidly becoming an important part of much of the world's critical infrastructure. As with human societies, regulation, wherein a governing body designs rules and processes for the society, plays an important role in ensuring that HARE meet societal objectives. However, to date, a careful study of interactions between a regulator and HARE is lacking. In this paper, we report on three user studies which give insights into how to design systems that allow people, acting as the regulatory authority, to effectively interact with HARE. As in the study of political systems in which governments regulate human societies, our studies analyze how interactions between HARE and regulators are impacted by regulatory power and individual (robot or agent) autonomy. Our results show that regulator power, decision support, and adaptive autonomy can each diminish the social welfare of HARE, and hint at how these seemingly desirable mechanisms can be designed so that they become part of successful HARE.

Bjarke Felbo, Alan Mislove, Anders Søgaard et al.

NLP tasks are often limited by scarcity of manually annotated data. In social media sentiment analysis and related tasks, researchers have therefore used binarized emoticons and specific hashtags as forms of distant supervision. Our paper shows that by extending the distant supervision to a more diverse set of noisy labels, the models can learn richer representations. Through emoji prediction on a dataset of 1246 million tweets containing one of 64 common emojis we obtain state-of-the-art performance on 8 benchmark datasets within sentiment, emotion and sarcasm detection using a single pretrained model. Our analyses confirm that the diversity of our emotional labels yield a performance improvement over previous distant supervision approaches.

Jacob W. Crandall, Mayada Oudah, Tennom et al.

Since Alan Turing envisioned Artificial Intelligence (AI) [1], a major driving force behind technical progress has been competition with human cognition. Historical milestones have been frequently associated with computers matching or outperforming humans in difficult cognitive tasks (e.g. face recognition [2], personality classification [3], driving cars [4], or playing video games [5]), or defeating humans in strategic zero-sum encounters (e.g. Chess [6], Checkers [7], Jeopardy! [8], Poker [9], or Go [10]). In contrast, less attention has been given to developing autonomous machines that establish mutually cooperative relationships with people who may not share the machine's preferences. A main challenge has been that human cooperation does not require sheer computational power, but rather relies on intuition [11], cultural norms [12], emotions and signals [13, 14, 15, 16], and pre-evolved dispositions toward cooperation [17], common-sense mechanisms that are difficult to encode in machines for arbitrary contexts. Here, we combine a state-of-the-art machine-learning algorithm with novel mechanisms for generating and acting on signals to produce a new learning algorithm that cooperates with people and other machines at levels that rival human cooperation in a variety of two-player repeated stochastic games. This is the first general-purpose algorithm that is capable, given a description of a previously unseen game environment, of learning to cooperate with people within short timescales in scenarios previously unanticipated by algorithm designers. This is achieved without complex opponent modeling or higher-order theories of mind, thus showing that flexible, fast, and general human-machine cooperation is computationally achievable using a non-trivial, but ultimately simple, set of algorithmic mechanisms.

Manuel Alfonseca, Manuel Cebrian, Antonio Fernandez Anta et al.

Superintelligence is a hypothetical agent that possesses intelligence far surpassing that of the brightest and most gifted human minds. In light of recent advances in machine intelligence, a number of scientists, philosophers and technologists have revived the discussion about the potential catastrophic risks entailed by such an entity. In this article, we trace the origins and development of the neo-fear of superintelligence, and some of the major proposals for its containment. We argue that such containment is, in principle, impossible, due to fundamental limits inherent to computing itself. Assuming that a superintelligence will contain a program that includes all the programs that can be executed by a universal Turing machine on input potentially as complex as the state of the world, strict containment requires simulations of such a program, something theoretically (and practically) infeasible.

Edmond Awad, Martin Caminada, Gabriella Pigozzi et al.

An inconsistent knowledge base can be abstracted as a set of arguments and a defeat relation among them. There can be more than one consistent way to evaluate such an argumentation graph. Collective argument evaluation is the problem of aggregating the opinions of multiple agents on how a given set of arguments should be evaluated. It is crucial not only to ensure that the outcome is logically consistent, but also satisfies measures of social optimality and immunity to strategic manipulation. This is because agents have their individual preferences about what the outcome ought to be. In the current paper, we analyze three previously introduced argument-based aggregation operators with respect to Pareto optimality and strategy proofness under different general classes of agent preferences. We highlight fundamental trade-offs between strategic manipulability and social optimality on one hand, and classical logical criteria on the other. Our results motivate further investigation into the relationship between social choice and argumentation theory. The results are also relevant for choosing an appropriate aggregation operator given the criteria that are considered more important, as well as the nature of agents' preferences.

Edmond Awad, Jean-François Bonnefon, Martin Caminada et al.

On the Web, there is always a need to aggregate opinions from the crowd (as in posts, social networks, forums, etc.). Different mechanisms have been implemented to capture these opinions such as "Like" in Facebook, "Favorite" in Twitter, thumbs-up/down, flagging, and so on. However, in more contested domains (e.g. Wikipedia, political discussion, and climate change discussion) these mechanisms are not sufficient since they only deal with each issue independently without considering the relationships between different claims. We can view a set of conflicting arguments as a graph in which the nodes represent arguments and the arcs between these nodes represent the defeat relation. A group of people can then collectively evaluate such graphs. To do this, the group must use a rule to aggregate their individual opinions about the entire argument graph. Here, we present the first experimental evaluation of different principles commonly employed by aggregation rules presented in the literature. We use randomized controlled experiments to investigate which principles people consider better at aggregating opinions under different conditions. Our analysis reveals a number of factors, not captured by traditional formal models, that play an important role in determining the efficacy of aggregation. These results help bring formal models of argumentation closer to real-world application.

Edmond Awad, Richard Booth, Fernando Tohme et al.

Given a set of conflicting arguments, there can exist multiple plausible opinions about which arguments should be accepted, rejected, or deemed undecided. We study the problem of how multiple such judgments can be aggregated. We define the problem by adapting various classical social-choice-theoretic properties for the argumentation domain. We show that while argument-wise plurality voting satisfies many properties, it fails to guarantee the collective rationality of the outcome, and struggles with ties. We then present more general results, proving multiple impossibility results on the existence of any good aggregation operator. After characterising the sufficient and necessary conditions for satisfying collective rationality, we study whether restricting the domain of argument-wise plurality voting to classical semantics allows us to escape the impossibility result. We close by listing graph-theoretic restrictions under which argument-wise plurality rule does produce collectively rational outcomes. In addition to identifying fundamental barriers to collective argument evaluation, our results open up the door for a new research agenda for the argumentation and computational social choice communities.