Using deep reinforcement learning to promote sustainable human behaviour on a common pool resource problem

A canonical social dilemma arises when finite resources are allocated to a group of people, who can choose to either reciprocate with interest, or keep the proceeds for themselves. What resource allocation mechanisms will encourage levels of reciprocation that sustain the commons? Here, in an iterated multiplayer trust game, we use deep reinforcement learning (RL) to design an allocation mechanism that endogenously promotes sustainable contributions from human participants to a common pool resource. We first trained neural networks to behave like human players, creating a stimulated economy that allowed us to study how different mechanisms influenced the dynamics of receipt and reciprocation. We then used RL to train a social planner to maximise aggregate return to players. The social planner discovered a redistributive policy that led to a large surplus and an inclusive economy, in which players made roughly equal gains. The RL agent increased human surplus over baseline mechanisms based on unrestricted welfare or conditional cooperation, by conditioning its generosity on available resources and temporarily sanctioning defectors by allocating fewer resources to them. Examining the AI policy allowed us to develop an explainable mechanism that performed similarly and was more popular among players. Deep reinforcement learning can be used to discover mechanisms that promote sustainable human behaviour.

Generative artificial intelligence enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content

Creativity is core to being human. Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) holds promise for humans to be more creative by offering new ideas, or less creative by anchoring on GenAI ideas. We study the causal impact of GenAI ideas on the production of an unstructured creative output in an online experimental study where some writers could obtain ideas for a story from a GenAI platform. We find that access to GenAI ideas causes stories to be evaluated as more creative, better written and more enjoyable, especially among less creative writers. However, objective measures of story similarity within each condition reveal that GenAI-enabled stories are more similar to each other than stories by humans alone. These results point to an increase in individual creativity, but at the same time there is a risk of losing collective novelty: this dynamic resembles a social dilemma where individual writers are better off using GenAI to improve their own writing, but collectively a narrower scope of novel content may be produced with GenAI. Our results have implications for researchers, policy-makers and practitioners interested in bolstering creativity, but point to potential downstream consequences from over-reliance.