Robin Schimmelpfennig

Robin Schimmelpfennig, Mark Díaz, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran et al.

Over a billion users globally interact with AI systems engineered to mimic human traits. This development raises concerns that anthropomorphism, the attribution of human characteristics to AI, may foster over-reliance and misplaced trust. Yet, causal effects of humanlike AI design on users remain untested in ecologically valid, cross-cultural settings, leaving policy discussions to rely on theoretical assumptions derived largely from Western populations. Here we conducted two experiments (N=3,500) across ten countries representing a wide cultural spectrum, involving real-time, open-ended interactions with a state-of-the-art chatbot. We found users evaluate human-likeness based on pragmatic interactional cues (conversation flow, response speed, perspective-taking) rather than abstract theory-driven attributes emphasized in academic discourse (e.g., sentience, consciousness). Furthermore, while experimentally increasing chatbot's human-likeness reliably increased anthropomorphism across all sampled countries, it did not universally increase trust or engagement. Instead, effects were culturally contingent; design choices fostering engagement or trust in one country may reduce them in another. These findings challenge prevailing assumptions that humanlike AI poses uniform psychological risks and necessarily increases trust. Risk is not inherent to humanlike design but emerges from its interplay with cultural context. Consequently, governance frameworks must move beyond universalist approaches to account for this global heterogeneity.

Luis Celiktemel, Edward Eichhorn, Levin Brinkmann et al.

Current approaches to instill prosociality in large language model (LLM) agents often rely on humans specifying desired behaviors at the individual level, which does not guarantee cooperation within LLM populations. As frontier training shifts toward individual rewards for verifiable tasks, such as mathematics and coding, this outcome-based focus may further undermine cooperation in multi-agent settings. Large-scale cooperation in human populations emerged via unguided evolutionary mechanisms, not a central architect. Group selection, in which cooperative groups within a population outcompete less cooperative ones, has been argued to be essential. In this study, we explore whether group selection can promote cooperation in populations of LLM agents. We introduce a multi-agent simulation framework in which LLM agents play a repeated social dilemma game and transmit their natural-language prompts across generations under either individual- or group-level selection. Under group selection, prompts from high-performing groups are transmitted, thereby promoting prosociality and stabilizing cooperation. Under individual selection, self-interested prompts dominate, causing populations to collapse into collective defection. This gap is robust across prompt ablations, alternative game framings, and model swaps. We theoretically reproduce key results using a replicator-mutator model, whose empirical transmission kernel predicts a phase transition at a critical threshold. Preliminary findings show that, when informed about the selection mechanism, GPT-5.4 preemptively and gradually adjusts first-generation donations. This demonstrates strong anticipatory behavior that was not observed in the other tested models. These results demonstrate that prosocial prompts and cooperative behaviors evolve in LLM agent populations under group selection.