Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
2000 character limit reached

Evolutionary mechanisms that promote cooperation may not promote social welfare (2408.05373v2)

Published 9 Aug 2024 in math.DS, cs.AI, cs.GT, cs.MA, and nlin.AO

Abstract: Understanding the emergence of prosocial behaviours among self-interested individuals is an important problem in many scientific disciplines. Various mechanisms have been proposed to explain the evolution of such behaviours, primarily seeking the conditions under which a given mechanism can induce highest levels of cooperation. As these mechanisms usually involve costs that alter individual payoffs, it is however possible that aiming for highest levels of cooperation might be detrimental for social welfare -- the later broadly defined as the total population payoff, taking into account all costs involved for inducing increased prosocial behaviours. Herein, by comparatively analysing the social welfare and cooperation levels obtained from stochastic evolutionary models of two well-established mechanisms of prosocial behaviour, namely, peer and institutional incentives, we demonstrate exactly that. We show that the objectives of maximising cooperation levels and the objectives of maximising social welfare are often misaligned. We argue for the need of adopting social welfare as the main optimisation objective when designing and implementing evolutionary mechanisms for social and collective goods.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (78)
  1. Trusting intelligent machines: Deepening trust within socio-technical systems. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 37(4):76–83.
  2. Social efficiency deficit deciphers social dilemmas. Scientific reports, 10(1):16092.
  3. Both eyes open: Vigilant incentives help auditors improve ai safety. Journal of Physics: Complexity, 5(2):025009.
  4. The evolution of altruistic punishment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(6):3531–3535.
  5. Language-based game theory in the age of artificial intelligence. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 21(212):20230720.
  6. Mathematical foundations of moral preferences. Journal of the Royal Society interface, 18(175):20200880.
  7. First carrot, then stick: how the adaptive hybridization of incentives promotes cooperation. Journal of the royal society interface, 12(102):20140935.
  8. Probabilistic sharing solves the problem of costly punishment. New Journal of Physics, 16(8):083016.
  9. Social diversity reduces the complexity and cost of fostering fairness. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 167:113051.
  10. Making an example: signalling threat in the evolution of cooperation. In 2020 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), pages 1–8. IEEE.
  11. The digital gallows: Threat of institutional punishment fosters the emergence of cooperation. In ALIFE 2024: Proceedings of the 2024 Artificial Life Conference. MIT Press.
  12. Cost-efficient interventions for promoting fairness in the ultimatum game. Knowledge-Based Systems, 233:107545.
  13. Regulatory markets for ai safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.00078.
  14. Coombs, C. H. (1973). A reparameterization of the prisoner’s dilemma game. Behavioral Science, 18(6):424–428.
  15. Cost optimisation of hybrid institutional incentives for promoting cooperation in finite populations. J. Math. Biol., 87(77).
  16. Cost efficiency of institutional incentives for promoting cooperation in finite populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 477(2254):20210568.
  17. Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415(6868):137–140.
  18. Delegation to artificial agents fosters prosocial behaviors in the collective risk dilemma. Scientific reports, 12(1):8492.
  19. Reward and punishment in climate change dilemmas. Sci. Rep., 9(1):1–9.
  20. Facilitating cooperation in human-agent hybrid populations through autonomous agents. Iscience, 26(11).
  21. Han, T. A. (2016). Emergence of social punishment and cooperation through prior commitments. In Proceedings of the thirtieth aaai conference on artificial intelligence, pages 2494–2500.
  22. Han, T. A. (2022a). Emergent behaviours in multi-agent systems with evolutionary game theory. AI Communications, 35(4):327 – 337.
  23. Han, T. A. (2022b). Institutional incentives for the evolution of committed cooperation: ensuring participation is as important as enhancing compliance. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 19(188):20220036.
  24. Voluntary safety commitments provide an escape from over-regulation in ai development. Technology in Society, 68:101843.
  25. Fostering cooperation in structured populations through local and global interference strategies. In Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 289–295.
  26. Corpus-based intention recognition in cooperation dilemmas. Artificial Life, 18(4):365–383.
  27. To Regulate or Not: A Social Dynamics Analysis of an Idealised AI Race. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 69:881–921.
  28. When to (or not to) trust intelligent machines: Insights from an evolutionary game theory analysis of trust in repeated games. Cognitive Systems Research, 68:111–124.
  29. Cost-effective external interference for promoting the evolution of cooperation. Scientific reports, 8(1):1–9.
  30. Via freedom to coercion: The emergence of costly punishment. Science, 316(5833):1905–1907.
  31. Antisocial punishment across societies. Science, 319(5868):1362–1367.
  32. Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic behavior, 7(3):346–380.
  33. Evolutionary cycles of cooperation and defection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(31):10797–10800.
  34. Scaling the phase-planes of social dilemma strengths shows game-class changes in the five rules governing the evolution of cooperation. Royal Society open science, 5(10):181085.
  35. The nash social welfare function. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 423–435.
  36. Inequity averse optimization in operational research. European journal of operational research, 245(2):343–359.
  37. Krellner, M. et al. (2021). Pleasing enhances indirect reciprocity-based cooperation under private assessment. Artificial Life, 27(3–4):246–276.
  38. Words are not wind–how joint commitment and reputation solve social dilemmas, without repeated interactions or enforcement by third parties. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.06898.
  39. Evolution of a theory of mind. Iscience, 27(2).
  40. Nesse, R. M. (2001). Evolution and the capacity for commitment. Foundation series on trust. Russell Sage.
  41. Novak, M. A. (2006). Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the Equations of Life. Harvard University Press.
  42. Nowak, M. A. (2006a). Evolutionary dynamics: exploring the equations of life. Harvard university press.
  43. Nowak, M. A. (2006b). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314(5805):1560–1563.
  44. Okada, I. (2020). A review of theoretical studies on indirect reciprocity. Games, 11(3):27.
  45. The windfall clause: Distributing the benefits of ai for the common good. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 327–331.
  46. Engineering pro-sociality with autonomous agents. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 32.
  47. Statistical physics of human cooperation. Physics Reports, 687:1–51.
  48. Adherence to public institutions that foster cooperation. Nature communications, 12(1):3567.
  49. Anti-social punishment can prevent the co-evolution of punishment and cooperation. Journal of theoretical biology, 265(4):624–632.
  50. Evolution of fairness in the one-shot anonymous ultimatum game. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(7):2581–2586.
  51. Risk of collective failure provides an escape from the tragedy of the commons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(26):10421–10425.
  52. Scale-free networks provide a unifying framework for the emergence of cooperation. Physical review letters, 95(9):098104.
  53. Evolutionary dynamics of social dilemmas in structured heterogeneous populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(9):3490–3494.
  54. Santos, F. P. (2024). Prosocial dynamics in multiagent systems. AI Magazine, 45(1):131–138.
  55. Social norm complexity and past reputations in the evolution of cooperation. Nature, 555(7695):242–245.
  56. The take-it-or-leave-it option allows small penalties to overcome social dilemmas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(4):1165–1169.
  57. Prosocial punishment bots breed social punishment in human players. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 21(212):20240019.
  58. Sigmund, K. (2010). The calculus of selfishness. In The Calculus of Selfishness. Princeton University Press.
  59. Social learning promotes institutions for governing the commons. Nature, 466:7308.
  60. Reward and punishment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(19):10757–10762.
  61. Smith, J. M. (1974). The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflicts. Journal of theoretical biology, 47(1):209–221.
  62. Combination of institutional incentives for cooperative governance of risky commons. Iscience, 24(8).
  63. State-dependent optimal incentive allocation protocols for cooperation in public goods games on regular networks. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering, 10(6):3975–3988.
  64. Evolutionary prisoner’s dilemma game on a square lattice. Physical Review E, 58(1):69.
  65. Ai for social good: unlocking the opportunity for positive impact. Nature Communications, 11(1):2468.
  66. Individual costs and societal benefits of interventions during the covid-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(24):e2303546120.
  67. Evolution of cooperation by multilevel selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(29):10952–10955.
  68. Reward and punishment in social dilemmas. Oxford University Press.
  69. Verdegem, P. (2024). Dismantling ai capitalism: the commons as an alternative to the power concentration of big tech. AI & society, 39(2):727–737.
  70. Exploring optimal institutional incentives for public cooperation. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 79:104914.
  71. Incentive strategies for the evolution of cooperation: Analysis and optimization. Europhysics Letters, 136(6):68002.
  72. Universal scaling for the dilemma strength in evolutionary games. Physics of life reviews, 14:1–30.
  73. Open (for business): Big tech, concentrated power, and the political economy of open ai. Concentrated Power, and the Political Economy of Open AI (August 17, 2023).
  74. Nepotism vs tit-for-tat, or, why should you be nice to your rotten brother? Evolutionary ecology, 5:291–299.
  75. Reputation and reciprocity. Physics of Life Reviews.
  76. Evolution of cooperation driven by sampling punishment. Physics Letters A, 475:128879.
  77. Emergence of cooperation in the one-shot prisoner’s dilemma through discriminatory and samaritan ais. Journal of the Royal Society Interface.
  78. Generosity motivated by acceptance-evolutionary analysis of an anticipation game. Scientific reports, 5(1):1–11.
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Whiteboard

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.