IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2209.12346.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Exploring the Constraints on Artificial General Intelligence: A Game-Theoretic No-Go Theorem

Author

Listed:
  • Mehmet S. Ismail

Abstract

The emergence of increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence (AI) systems have sparked intense debate among researchers, policymakers, and the public due to their potential to surpass human intelligence and capabilities in all domains. In this paper, I propose a game-theoretic framework that captures the strategic interactions between a human agent and a potential superhuman machine agent. I identify four key assumptions: Strategic Unpredictability, Access to Machine's Strategy, Rationality, and Superhuman Machine. The main result of this paper is an impossibility theorem: these four assumptions are inconsistent when taken together, but relaxing any one of them results in a consistent set of assumptions. Two straightforward policy recommendations follow: first, policymakers should control access to specific human data to maintain Strategic Unpredictability; and second, they should grant select AI researchers access to superhuman machine research to ensure Access to Machine's Strategy holds. My analysis contributes to a better understanding of the context that can shape the theoretical development of superhuman AI.

Suggested Citation

  • Mehmet S. Ismail, 2022. "Exploring the Constraints on Artificial General Intelligence: A Game-Theoretic No-Go Theorem," Papers 2209.12346, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2209.12346
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.12346
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McKelvey, Richard D & Palfrey, Thomas R, 1992. "An Experimental Study of the Centipede Game," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 803-836, July.
    2. Isaksen, Aaron & Ismail, Mehmet & Brams, Steven J. & Nealen, Andy, 2015. "Catch-Up: A Game in Which the Lead Alternates," MPRA Paper 108784, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List & Sally E. Sadoff, 2011. "Checkmate: Exploring Backward Induction among Chess Players," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 975-990, April.
    4. Ariel Rubinstein, 2007. "Instinctive and Cognitive Reasoning: A Study of Response Times," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(523), pages 1243-1259, October.
    5. Fey, Mark & McKelvey, Richard D & Palfrey, Thomas R, 1996. "An Experimental Study of Constant-Sum Centipede Games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 25(3), pages 269-287.
    6. Rosenthal, Robert W., 1981. "Games of perfect information, predatory pricing and the chain-store paradox," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 92-100, August.
    7. Lorenzo Bastianello & Mehmet S. Ismail, 2022. "Rationality and correctness in n-player games," Papers 2209.09847, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    8. David Silver & Aja Huang & Chris J. Maddison & Arthur Guez & Laurent Sifre & George van den Driessche & Julian Schrittwieser & Ioannis Antonoglou & Veda Panneershelvam & Marc Lanctot & Sander Dieleman, 2016. "Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search," Nature, Nature, vol. 529(7587), pages 484-489, January.
    9. Mehmet S. Ismail, 2019. "Super-Nash performance in games," Papers 1912.00211, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    10. Ariel Rubinstein, 2007. "Instinctive and Cognitive Reasoning: Response Times Study," Levine's Bibliography 321307000000001011, UCLA Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ismail, Mehmet S., 2024. "Exploring the constraints on artificial general intelligence: A game-theoretic model of human vs machine interaction," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 70-76.
    2. Konrad Grabiszewski & Alex Horenstein, 2022. "Profiling dynamic decision-makers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-22, April.
    3. Mehmet S. Ismail, 2022. "Optimin achieves super-Nash performance," Papers 2210.00625, arXiv.org.
    4. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    5. Paolo Crosetto & Marco Mantovani, 2012. "Availability of Information and Representation Effects in the Centipede Game," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-051, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    6. Briony D Pulford & Eva M Krockow & Andrew M Colman & Catherine L Lawrence, 2016. "Social Value Induction and Cooperation in the Centipede Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, March.
    7. Grabiszewski, Konrad & Horenstein, Alex, 2022. "Measuring tree complexity with response times," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    8. Spenkuch, Jörg, 2014. "Backward Induction in the Wild: Evidence from the U.S. Senate," MPRA Paper 58766, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Bernardo García-Pola & Nagore Iriberri & Jaromír Kovářík, 2020. "Hot versus cold behavior in centipede games," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(2), pages 226-238, December.
    10. Andreas Tutić & Sascha Grehl, 2017. "A Note on Disbelief in Others regarding Backward Induction," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-7, August.
    11. García-Pola, Bernardo & Iriberri, Nagore & Kovářík, Jaromír, 2020. "Non-equilibrium play in centipede games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 391-433.
    12. Teck-Hua Ho & Xuanming Su, 2013. "A Dynamic Level-k Model in Sequential Games," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 452-469, March.
    13. Cardella, Eric, 2012. "Learning to make better strategic decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 382-392.
    14. Dufwenberg, Martin & Van Essen, Matt, 2018. "King of the Hill: Giving backward induction its best shot," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 125-138.
    15. Isabelle Brocas & Juan Carrillo, 2022. "The centipede game at school: does developing backward induction logic drive behavior?," Artefactual Field Experiments 00761, The Field Experiments Website.
    16. Dan Levin & Luyao Zhang, 2022. "Bridging Level-K to Nash Equilibrium," Papers 2202.12292, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2022.
    17. Eva M. Krockow & Masanori Takezawa & Briony D. Pulford & Andrew M. Colman & Samuel Smithers & Toshimasa Kita & Yo Nakawake, 2018. "Commitment-enhancing tools in Centipede games: Evidencing European–Japanese differences in trust and cooperation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 61-72, January.
    18. Steven J. Brams & D. Marc Kilgour, 2020. "A Note on Stabilizing Cooperation in the Centipede Game," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-7, August.
    19. Jacquemet, Nicolas & Joule, Robert-Vincent & Luchini, Stéphane & Malézieux, Antoine, 2016. "Engagement et incitations : comportements économiques sous serment," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 92(1-2), pages 315-349, Mars-Juin.
    20. Egbert, Henrik, 2017. "The Gift and the Centipede," MPRA Paper 80324, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2209.12346. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.