Abstract:Recent success of artificial intelligence is largely based on reinforcement learning (RL), in which an agent acts to maximize expected rewards. RL has deep roots in Psychology for modeling animal behavior and captures the fact that human actions are driven by desires. Nevertheless, it misses one mental representation highlighted by more recent cognitive Theory-of-Mind (ToM) models: Intention. Unlike desires, intentions form stable, partial plans of action concerning the future, demand “commitment” (Bratman, 1987). While having conflicting desires is part of human nature (e.g. losing weight and enjoying food), intentions should always be coherent, stable and admissible. Here we tested predictions of RL and ToM in a visual navigation task involving conflicting desires. A human or RL model controls an agent to reach one of two equally desirable restaurants in a 2D map. With a low-probability, random action noises can cause the agent to drift slightly. To test “commitment to an intention”, we created a special trial: once the agent clearly moves towards one restaurant, noises will push the agent away so that the alternative restaurant becomes a better “rational” choice. As predicted, the RL agent showed no commitment, with close to 0% still pursuing the original restaurant. In contrast, in 70% of trials, humans fought the noise and pursued the original restaurant persistently. In addition, humans form a commitment with deliberation. In the same task, we performed online prediction of the agent’s destination through well-established Bayesian ToM. The results demonstrated that while RL quickly displayed a preference, humans avoided showing any preference early on. In conclusion, humans are unlike RL in that they appreciate the gravity of commitment, preferring not to rush forming an intention, but once committed, remain so despite setbacks. These results collectively demonstrate intention is an intrinsic mental representation that can forcefully regulate human actions through commitment.

Human Motivation in Competition against Artificial Intelligence: Using One-to-One Games

When people are defeated by artificial intelligence in a competition task requiring logical thinking, how do they make causal attribution?

Ancillary Mechanism for Autonomous Decision-Making Process in Asymmetric Confrontation: a View from Gomoku

Game AI Competitions: Motivation for the Imitation Game-Playing Competition

Human-AI Collaboration in a Cooperative Game Setting

Evaluation of Human-AI Teams for Learned and Rule-Based Agents in Hanabi

Closing the human-AI team-mate gap: how changes to displayed information impact player behavior towards computer teammates

Anthropomorphism-based causal and responsibility attributions to robots

Human Learning about AI Performance

Mental Models of AI Agents in a Cooperative Game Setting

Attentional Bias in Competitive Situations: Winner Does Not Take All

Raising the Stakes: Performance Pressure Improves AI-Assisted Decision Making

Intention Beyond Desire: Commitment in Human Action

Intrinsic motivation in competition: The intervening role of four individual differences following objective competence information

Multi-AI competing and winning against humans in iterated Rock-Paper-Scissors game

Motivate AI Class with Interactive Computer Game

Effects of Task Structure and Attribution Target on Responsibility Attributions in Human–robot Interaction

Prompting Fairness: Artificial Intelligence as Game Players

How to provide competitors in educational gamification: The roles of competitor level and autonomous choice

Human-AI Learning Performance in Multi-Armed Bandits