PreprintCited by 2Multi-Agent Systems and NegotiationEthics and Social Impacts of AIEvolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation

Artificial Leviathan: Exploring Social Evolution of LLM Agents Through the Lens of Hobbesian Social Contract Theory

Open access
Dai, Gordon, Zhang, Weijia, Li, Jinhan, Yang, Siqi, lbe, Chidera Onochie, Rao, Srihas, Caetano, Arthur, Sra, Misha·2024·arXiv

Abstract

The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) and advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) offer an opportunity for computational social science research at scale. Building upon prior explorations of LLM agent design, our work introduces a simulated agent society where complex social relationships dynamically form and evolve over time. Agents are imbued with psychological drives and placed in a sandbox survival environment. We conduct an evaluation of the agent society through the lens of Thomas Hobbes's seminal Social Contract Theory (SCT). We analyze whether, as the theory postulates, agents seek to escape a brutish "state of nature" by surrendering rights to an absolute sovereign in exchange for order and security. Our experiments unveil an alignment: Initially, agents engage in unrestrained conflict, mirroring Hobbes's depiction of the state of nature. However, as the simulation progresses, social contracts emerge, leading to the authorization of an absolute sovereign and the establishment of a peaceful commonwealth founded on mutual cooperation. This congruence between our LLM agent society's evolutionary trajectory and Hobbes's theoretical account indicates LLMs' capability to model intricate social dynamics and potentially replicate forces that shape human societies. By enabling such insights into group behavior and emergent societal phenomena, LLM-driven multi-agent simulations, while unable to simulate all the nuances of human behavior, may hold potential for advancing our understanding of social structures, group dynamics, and complex human systems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2406.14373

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Eckhart Arnold. 2014. What's Wrong With Social Simulations? The Monist 97, 3 (11 2014), 359-377. https://doi.org/10.5840/ monist201497323 arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/monist/article- pdf/97/3/359/3990269/monist97-0359.pdf · DOI
  2. Sasha Azad and C.R. Martens. 2021. Little Computer People: A Survey and Taxonomy of Simulated Models of Social Interaction. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3474672 · DOI
  3. Jitao Bai, Simiao Zhang, and Zhonghao Chen. 2023. Is There Any Social Principle for LLM-Based Agents? arXiv:2308.11136 [cs.CY] · arXiv
  4. Christopher A Bail. 2023. Can Generative AI Improve Social Science? https: //doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/rwtzs · DOI · Paper page
  5. Jessica L. Barker. 2021. Robert Axelrod's (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 6712-6719. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-19650-3_1220 · DOI
  6. Louise Barrett, Robin Dunbar, and John Lycett. 2002. Human evolutionary psy- chology. Princeton University Press.
  7. Joseph Bates et al. 1994. The role of emotion in believable agents. Commun. ACM 37, 7 (1994), 122-125.
  8. Marcel Binz and Eric Schulz. 2023. Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, 6 (2023), e2218523120.
  9. D. Buss. 2015. Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Taylor & Francis. https://books.google.com/books?id=c85WCgAAQBAJ
  10. Justine Cassell. 2001. Embodied conversational agents: representation and intel- ligence in user interfaces. AI magazine 22, 4 (2001), 67-67.
  11. Yun-Shiuan Chuang, Siddharth Suresh, Nikunj Harlalka, Agam Goyal, Robert Hawkins, Sijia Yang, Dhavan Shah, Junjie Hu, and Timothy T Rogers. 2023. Evaluating LLM Agent Group Dynamics against Human Group Dynamics: A Case Study on Wisdom of Partisan Crowds. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09665 (2023). · arXiv
  12. Jerry Alan Fails and Dan R Olsen Jr. 2003. Interactive machine learning. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces. 39- 45.
  13. Jonathan Gratch, Ning Wang, Jillian Gerten, Edward Fast, and Robin Duffy. 2007. Creating rapport with virtual agents. In Intelligent Virtual Agents: 7th International Conference, IVA 2007 Paris, France, September 17-19, 2007 Proceedings 7. Springer, 125-138.
  14. James D Hollan, Edwin L Hutchins, and Louis Weitzman. 1984. STEAMER: An interactive inspectable simulation-based training system. AI magazine 5, 2 (1984), 15-15.
  15. Wenyue Hua, Lizhou Fan, Lingyao Li, Kai Mei, Jianchao Ji, Yingqiang Ge, Libby Hemphill, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2023. War and peace (waragent): Large language model-based multi-agent simulation of world wars. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17227 (2023). · arXiv
  16. Zhiqiu Jiang, Mashrur Rashik, Kunjal Panchal, Mahmood Jasim, Ali Sarvghad, Pari Riahi, Erica DeWitt, Fey Thurber, and Narges Mahyar. 2023. Community- Bots: Creating and evaluating a multi-agent chatbot platform for public input elicitation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (2023), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579469 · DOI
  17. Tomoko Koda and Pattie Maes. 1996. Agents with faces: The effect of person- ification. In Proceedings 5th IEEE international workshop on robot and human communication. RO-MAN'96 TSUKUBA. IEEE, 189-194.
  18. Peter M. Krafft, Michael Macy, and Alex "Sandy" Pentland. 2017. Bots as virtual confederates. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181. 2998354 · DOI
  19. Christos Kyrlitsias and Despina Michael-Grigoriou. 2022. Social interaction with agents and avatars in immersive virtual environments: A survey. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 2 (2022), 786665.
  20. Joseph CR Licklider. 1960. Man-computer symbiosis. IRE transactions on human factors in electronics 1 (1960), 4-11.
  21. Pattie Maes. 1995. Artificial life meets entertainment: lifelike autonomous agents. Commun. ACM 38, 11 (1995), 108-114.
  22. Laura Martinengo, Xiaowen Lin, Ahmad Ishqi Jabir, Tobias Kowatsch, Rifat Atun, Josip Car, and Lorainne Tudor Car. 2023. Conversational Agents in Health Care: Expert Interviews to Inform the Definition, Classification, and Conceptual Framework. Journal of Medical Internet Research (2023).
  23. A. H. Maslow. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50, 4 (1943), 370-396.
  24. Joon Sung Park, Joseph O'Brien, Carrie Jun Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bernstein. 2023. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1-22.
  25. Pat Pataranutaporn, Valdemar Danry, Lancelot Blanchard, Lavanay Thakral, Naoki Ohsugi, Pattie Maes, and Misha Sra. 2023. Living Memories: AI-Generated Characters as Digital Mementos. In Proceedings of the 28th International Confer- ence on Intelligent User Interfaces. 889-901.
  26. M Ranjitha, Kazaka Nathan, and Lincy Joseph. 2019. Artificial Intelligence Algorithms and Techniques in the computation of Player-Adaptive Games. Third National Conference on Computational Intelligence (2019).
  27. Jeff Rickel. 2001. Intelligent virtual agents for education and training: Oppor- tunities and challenges. In International Workshop on Intelligent Virtual Agents. Springer, 15-22.
  28. Mark Riedl and Vadim Bulitko. 2012. Interactive narrative: A novel application of artificial intelligence for computer games. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 26. 2160-2165.
  29. Patrick Riley. 1982. Will and political legitimacy: A critical exposition of social contract theory in Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and Hegel. Harvard University Press.
  30. Kerstin Ruhland, Christopher E Peters, Sean Andrist, Jeremy B Badler, Norman I Badler, Michael Gleicher, Bilge Mutlu, and Rachel McDonnell. 2015. A review of eye gaze in virtual agents, social robotics and hci: Behaviour generation, user interaction and perception. In Computer graphics forum, Vol. 34. Wiley Online Library, 299-326.
  31. Thomas C. Schelling. 1971. Dynamic models of segregation. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1, 2 (1971), 143-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X. 1971.9989794 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1971.9989794 · DOI
  32. Eric Schwitzgebel, David Schwitzgebel, and Anna Strasser. 2023. Creating a Large Language Model of a Philosopher. arXiv:2302.01339 [cs.CL] · arXiv
  33. Milind Tambe, W Lewis Johnson, Randolph M Jones, Frank Koss, John E Laird, Paul S Rosenbloom, and Karl Schwamb. 1995. Intelligent agents for interactive simulation environments. AI magazine 16, 1 (1995), 15-15.
  34. Jörgen W Weibull. 1997. Evolutionary game theory. MIT press.
  35. Xiaochun Zhao. 2021. Cooperation and Competition in the Innovation Ecosystem From the Perspective of Evolutionary Psychology. Frontiers in Psychology 12 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.769847 · DOI
  36. Qingxiao Zheng, Zhongwei Xu, Abhinav Choudhry, Yuting Chen, Yongming Li, and Yun Huang. 2023. Synergizing Human-AI Agency: A Guide of 23 Heuristics for Service Co-Creation with LLM-Based Agents. arXiv:2310.15065 [cs.HC · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dai, G., Zhang, W., Li, J., Yang, S., lbe, C. O., Rao, S., Caetano, A., & Sra, M.
Affiliations
  • Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Corresponding author
  • Dai, Gordon
  • Zhang, Weijia
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Volume
14
ISSN
2296-424X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4399911812
Cited by
2
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
FWCI
3.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Physics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
University of California, Santa Barbara
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
Keywords
large language models, LLM agents, social contract theory, Thomas Hobbes, state of nature, multi-agent simulation, artificial societies, group cooperation, computational social science

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review