Mediating Artificial Intelligence Developments through Negative and Positive Incentives
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is going through a period of great expectations, introducing a certain level of anxiety in research, business and also policy. This anxiety is further energised by an AI race narrative that makes people believe they might be missing out. Whether real or not, a belief in this narrative may be detrimental as some stake-holders will feel obliged to cut corners on safety precautions, or ignore societal consequences just to "win". Starting from a baseline model that describes a broad class of technology races where winners draw a significant benefit compared to others (such as AI advances, patent race, pharmaceutical technologies), we investigate here how positive (rewards) and negative (punishments) incentives may beneficially influence the outcomes. We uncover conditions in which punishment is either capable of reducing the development speed of unsafe participants or has the capacity to reduce innovation through over-regulation. Alternatively, we show that, in several scenarios, rewarding those that follow safety measures may increase the development speed while ensuring safe choices. Moreover, in {the latter} regimes, rewards do not suffer from the issue of over-regulation as is the case for punishment. Overall, our findings provide valuable insights into the nature and kinds of regulatory actions most suitable to improve safety compliance in the contexts of both smooth and sudden technological shifts.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 1 Oct 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 1; 2023: 2; 2024: 2; 2025: 0; 2026: 2.
9 papers.
- 2021Voluntary safety commitments provide an escape from over-regulation in AI developmentcited by 10
- 2024Trust AI Regulation? Discerning users are vital to build trust and effective AI regulationcited by 9
- 2026Social physics in the age of artificial intelligencecited by 4
- 2024Evolutionary mechanisms that promote cooperation may not promote social welfarecited by 3
- 2023Both eyes open: Vigilant Incentives help Regulatory Markets improve AI Safetycited by 2
- 2022Understanding Emergent Behaviours in Multi-Agent Systems with Evolutionary Game Theorycited by 1
- 2021Safe Transformative AI via a Windfall Clausecited by 0
- 2023Evolutionary game theory: the mathematics of evolution and collective behaviourscited by 0
- 2026Falling Behind Drives Unsafe Development in an Idealised AI Race Experimentcited by 0
- 2026Falling Behind Drives Unsafe Development in an Idealised AI Race Experiment28 Jul 2026
- 2026Social physics in the age of artificial intelligence4 Mar 2026
- 2024Evolutionary mechanisms that promote cooperation may not promote social welfare9 Aug 2024
- 2024Trust AI Regulation? Discerning users are vital to build trust and effective AI regulation14 Mar 2024
- 2023Evolutionary game theory: the mathematics of evolution and collective behaviours24 Nov 2023
- 2023Both eyes open: Vigilant Incentives help Regulatory Markets improve AI Safety6 Mar 2023
- 2022Understanding Emergent Behaviours in Multi-Agent Systems with Evolutionary Game Theory15 May 2022
- 2021Safe Transformative AI via a Windfall Clause20 Aug 2021
- 2021Voluntary safety commitments provide an escape from over-regulation in AI development8 Apr 2021