Abstract:In social dilemmas where the collective and self-interests are at odds, people typically cooperate less with machines than with fellow humans, a phenomenon termed the machine penalty. Overcoming this penalty is critical for successful human-machine collectives, yet current solutions often involve ethically-questionable tactics, like concealing machines' non-human nature. In this study, with 1,152 participants, we explore the possibility of closing this research question by using Large Language Models (LLMs), in scenarios where communication is possible between interacting parties. We design three types of LLMs: (i) Cooperative, aiming to assist its human associate; (ii) Selfish, focusing solely on maximizing its self-interest; and (iii) Fair, balancing its own and collective interest, while slightly prioritizing self-interest. Our findings reveal that, when interacting with humans, fair LLMs are able to induce cooperation levels comparable to those observed in human-human interactions, even when their non-human nature is fully disclosed. In contrast, selfish and cooperative LLMs fail to achieve this goal. Post-experiment analysis shows that all three types of LLMs succeed in forming mutual cooperation agreements with humans, yet only fair LLMs, which occasionally break their promises, are capable of instilling a perception among humans that cooperating with them is the social norm, and eliciting positive views on their trustworthiness, mindfulness, intelligence, and communication quality. Our findings suggest that for effective human-machine cooperation, bot manufacturers should avoid designing machines with mere rational decision-making or a sole focus on assisting humans. Instead, they should design machines capable of judiciously balancing their own interest and the interest of humans.

AI tool helps people with opposing views find common ground

AI can help humans find common ground in democratic deliberation

Examining Human-AI Collaboration for Co-Writing Constructive Comments Online

AI Chat Assistants can Improve Conversations about Divisive Topics

Large Language Models Overcome the Machine Penalty When Acting Fairly but Not When Acting Selfishly or Altruistically

AI Language Models Could Both Help and Harm Equity in Marine Policymaking: The Case Study of the BBNJ Question-Answering Bot

The Persuasive Power of Large Language Models

Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators

Using Large Language Models for Humanitarian Frontline Negotiation: Opportunities and Considerations

Collective Constitutional AI: Aligning a Language Model with Public Input

Leveraging AI for democratic discourse: Chat interventions can improve online political conversations at scale

Large Language Models Can Argue in Convincing Ways About Politics, But Humans Dislike AI Authors: implications for Governance

How large language models can reshape collective intelligence

AI chatbot gets conspiracy theorists to question their convictions

AI Language Models: An Opportunity to Enhance Language Learning

Synthetic Lies: Understanding AI-Generated Misinformation and Evaluating Algorithmic and Human Solutions

Co-Writing with Opinionated Language Models Affects Users' Views

From Bytes to Biases: Investigating the Cultural Self-Perception of Large Language Models

Social Skill Training with Large Language Models

Large Language Models Help Humans Verify Truthfulness -- Except When They Are Convincingly Wrong

AI Within Online Discussions: Rational, Civil, Privileged?