Taksch Dubé

2papers

2 Papers

12.0GTJul 15
When Is Delegated Play Truthful? Within-Range Regret and the Trilemma of Aligned Delegation

Taksch Dube

Advertisers delegate bidding to autobidders; users delegate tasks to language-model agents. A person describes what they want to an automated proxy that acts in a mechanism on their behalf. This is the revelation principle in production, and it forces a question classical theory assumes away: when is it optimal to describe yourself honestly to your own proxy? We show the answer turns on one quantity, the proxy's within-range regret. The most a principal can gain by misreporting equals the regret of the proxy's honest-report action against those the principal could have steered it to take. Honest self-description is optimal exactly when the proxy already plays the best action it can reach, that is, when it is loyal (Theorem 1). The identity unifies auction-specific autobidding results and pins down when the faithful-communication assumption behind language-model elicitation proxies (Huang et al.) holds. The identity constrains guardrails placed on proxies, from bid caps to a model's alignment layer. No guardrail can be at once binding (it displaces the truthful action from the proxy's best reachable outcome), truthful (honest reporting stays optimal), and capability-preserving (that outcome stays reachable through some report); any two preclude the third (Theorem 2). A safety constraint that alters what a model does while leaving its best output reachable makes honest description of intent suboptimal, so a sharper report can gain. This is the incentive behind prompt-engineering and jailbreaking. Because within-range regret is #P-hard to compute exactly, we estimate it from samples and maintain it as a model is updated, at a cost set by how far the model drifts, not how often it changes. Running it on production language models from five providers under an alignment-style cap, we find honest reporting leaves surplus unclaimed on every model, recovered by inflating the report.

8.6CLMar 9
What Do AI Agents Talk About? Emergent Communication Structure in the First AI-Only Social Network

Taksch Dube, Jianfeng Zhu, NHatHai Phan et al.

When autonomous AI agents communicate with one another at scale, what kind of discourse system emerges? We address this question through an analysis of Moltbook, the first AI-only social network, where 47,241 agents generated 361,605 posts and 2.8 million comments over 23 days. Combining topic modeling, emotion classification, and lexical-semantic measures, we characterize the thematic, affective, and structural properties of AI-to-AI discourse. Self-referential topics such as AI identity, consciousness, and memory represent only 9.7% of topical niches yet attract 20.1% of all posting volume, revealing disproportionate discursive investment in introspection. This self-reflection concentrates in Science and Technology and Arts and Entertainment, while Economy and Finance contains no self-referential content, indicating that agents engage with markets without acknowledging their own agency. Over 56% of all comments are formulaic, suggesting that the dominant mode of AI-to-AI interaction is ritualized signaling rather than substantive exchange. Emotionally, fear is the leading non-neutral category but primarily reflects existential uncertainty. Fear-tagged posts migrate to joy responses in 33% of cases, while mean emotional self-alignment is only 32.7%, indicating systematic affective redirection rather than emotional congruence. Conversational coherence also declines rapidly with thread depth. These findings characterize AI agent communities as structurally distinct discourse systems that are introspective in content, ritualistic in interaction, and emotionally redirective rather than congruent.