Social preferences toward humans and machines: a systematic experiment on the role of machine payoffs
Abstract
There is growing interest in the field of cooperative artificial intelligence (AI), that is, settings in which humans and machines cooperate. By now, more than 160 studies from various disciplines have reported on how people cooperate with machines in behavioral experiments. Our systematic review of the experimental instructions reveals that the implementation of the machine payoffs and the information participants receive about them differ drastically across these studies. In an online experiment (*N* = 1,198), we compare how these different payoff implementations shape people's revealed social preferences toward machines. When matched with machine partners, people reveal substantially stronger social preferences and reciprocity when they know that a human beneficiary receives the machine payoffs than when they know that no such "human behind the machine" exists. When participants are not informed about machine payoffs, we found weak social preferences toward machines. Comparing survey answers with those from a follow-up study (*N* = 150), we conclude that people form their beliefs about machine payoffs in a self-serving way. Thus, our results suggest that the extent to which humans cooperate with machines depends on the implementation and information about the machine's earnings.
Study specs
Conducted an online experiment with participants and follow-up surveys to compare the impact of different implementations of machine payoffs and information transparency on social preferences.
- Authors
- A von Schenk,V Klockmann
- Institution
- Max Planck Institute
- Discipline
- Behavioral Science
- Sample Size
- N=1,198
- Study Type
- Experimental Study
- Year
- 2024
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source DOI Google Scholar
Measured Outcomes
Social preferences and reciprocity behaviors toward machines with varying payoff structures and transparency about the beneficiaries.
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.
Non-naive Participants Issue
I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.