IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jgames/v13y2022i3p46-d842787.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Can Game Theory Tell Us about an AI ‘Theory of Mind’?

Author

Listed:
  • Michael S. Harré

    (Complex Systems Research Group, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia)

Abstract

Game theory includes a rich source of methods for analysing strategic interactions where there are a small number of agents, each having only a few choices. In more complex settings though, where there are many choices over indefinite time horizons involving large social groups, these methods are unlikely to fully capture the causes of agent behaviour. If agents are able to simplify the task of understanding what others might do by modelling the constraints of others, particularly unobservable cognitive constraints, then the possible behavioural outcomes can be similarly restricted, thereby reducing the complexity of a social interaction. Having a cognitive representation of the unobserved causal states of others is an aspect of a ‘Theory of Mind’ and it plays a central role in the psychology of social interactions. In this article I examine a selection of results on the theory of mind and connect these with the ‘game theory of mind’ to draw conclusions regarding the complexity of one-on-one and large-scale social coordination. To make this explicit, I will illustrate the relationship between the two psychological terms ‘introspection’ and ‘theory of mind’ and the economic analysis of game theory, while retaining as much as possible of the richness of the psychological concepts. It will be shown that game theory plays an important role in modelling interpersonal relationships for both biological and artificial agents, but it is not yet the whole story, and some psychological refinements to game theory are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael S. Harré, 2022. "What Can Game Theory Tell Us about an AI ‘Theory of Mind’?," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-11, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jgames:v:13:y:2022:i:3:p:46-:d:842787
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/13/3/46/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/13/3/46/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wolpert David & Jamison Julian & Newth David & Harre Michael, 2011. "Strategic Choice of Preferences: the Persona Model," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-39, August.
    2. McKelvey Richard D. & Palfrey Thomas R., 1995. "Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 6-38, July.
    3. Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A., 2004. "A model of noisy introspection," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 365-382, February.
    4. Wako Yoshida & Ray J Dolan & Karl J Friston, 2008. "Game Theory of Mind," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(12), pages 1-14, December.
    5. Jacob Goeree & Charles Holt & Thomas Palfrey, 2005. "Regular Quantal Response Equilibrium," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(4), pages 347-367, December.
    6. Haruto Takagishi & Michiko Koizumi & Takayuki Fujii & Joanna Schug & Shinya Kameshima & Toshio Yamagishi, 2014. "The Role of Cognitive and Emotional Perspective Taking in Economic Decision Making in the Ultimatum Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-7, September.
    7. Halberstam, Yosh & Knight, Brian, 2016. "Homophily, group size, and the diffusion of political information in social networks: Evidence from Twitter," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 73-88.
    8. Bhatt, Meghana & Camerer, Colin F., 2005. "Self-referential thinking and equilibrium as states of mind in games: fMRI evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 424-459, August.
    9. Stefanos Leonardos & Georgios Piliouras & Kelly Spendlove, 2021. "Exploration-Exploitation in Multi-Agent Competition: Convergence with Bounded Rationality," Papers 2106.12928, arXiv.org.
    10. David Silver & Julian Schrittwieser & Karen Simonyan & Ioannis Antonoglou & Aja Huang & Arthur Guez & Thomas Hubert & Lucas Baker & Matthew Lai & Adrian Bolton & Yutian Chen & Timothy Lillicrap & Fan , 2017. "Mastering the game of Go without human knowledge," Nature, Nature, vol. 550(7676), pages 354-359, October.
    11. Hannes Lang & Gregory DeAngelo & Michelle Bongard, 2018. "Theory of Mind and General Intelligence in Dictator and Ultimatum Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-22, March.
    12. Jacob K. Goeree & Charles A. Holt & Thomas R. Palfrey, 2016. "Quantal Response Equilibrium:A Stochastic Theory of Games," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10743.
    13. Eyal Ert & Ido Erev & Alvin E. Roth, 2011. "A Choice Prediction Competition for Social Preferences in Simple Extensive Form Games: An Introduction," Games, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-20, July.
    14. Gregory B. Newby, 2001. "Cognitive space and information space," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 52(12), pages 1026-1048.
    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. Shuige Liu & Fabio Maccheroni, 2021. "Quantal Response Equilibrium and Rationalizability: Inside the Black Box," Papers 2106.16081, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    2. Friedman, Evan, 2020. "Endogenous quantal response equilibrium," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 620-643.
    3. Benjamin Patrick Evans & Mikhail Prokopenko, 2024. "Bounded rationality for relaxing best response and mutual consistency: the quantal hierarchy model of decision making," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 71-111, February.
    4. Alan Kirman & François Laisney & Paul Pezanis-Christou, 2023. "Relaxing the symmetry assumption in participation games: a specification test for cluster-heterogeneity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(4), pages 850-878, September.
    5. Choo, Lawrence C.Y & Kaplan, Todd R., 2014. "Explaining Behavior in the "11-20" Game," MPRA Paper 52808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Benjamin Patrick Evans & Mikhail Prokopenko, 2021. "Bounded rationality for relaxing best response and mutual consistency: The Quantal Hierarchy model of decision-making," Papers 2106.15844, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2023.
    7. Miguel A Costa-Gomes & Vincent P Crawford & Nagore Iriberri, 2008. "Comparing Models of Strategic Thinking in Van Huyck, Battalio, and Beil’s Coordination Games," Levine's Working Paper Archive 122247000000002346, David K. Levine.
    8. Jonathan W. Leland, 2006. "Equilibrium Selection, Similarity Judgments and the "Nothing to Gain/Nothing to Lose" Effect," CEEL Working Papers 0604, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    9. Dagsvik, John K., 2020. "Equilibria in Logit Models of Social Interaction and Quantal Response Equilibrium," HERO Online Working Paper Series 2020:5, University of Oslo, Health Economics Research Programme, revised 09 Mar 2023.
    10. Nagel, Rosemarie & Bühren, Christoph & Frank, Björn, 2017. "Inspired and inspiring: Hervé Moulin and the discovery of the beauty contest game," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 191-207.
    11. Funai, Naoki, 2022. "Reinforcement learning with foregone payoff information in normal form games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 638-660.
    12. Roy Allen & John Rehbeck, 2021. "A Generalization of Quantal Response Equilibrium via Perturbed Utility," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, March.
    13. Jacob K Goeree & Bernardo Garcia-Pola, 2023. "S Equilibrium: A Synthesis of (Behavioral) Game Theory," Papers 2307.06309, arXiv.org.
    14. Rogers, Brian W. & Palfrey, Thomas R. & Camerer, Colin F., 2009. "Heterogeneous quantal response equilibrium and cognitive hierarchies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(4), pages 1440-1467, July.
    15. Benndorf, Volker & Martínez-Martínez, Ismael, 2017. "Perturbed best response dynamics in a hawk–dove game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 61-64.
    16. Heggedal, Tom-Reiel & Helland, Leif & Morton, Rebecca, 2022. "Can paying politicians well reduce corruption? The effects of wages and uncertainty on electoral competition," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 60-73.
    17. Michael S. Harr'e & Adam Harris & Scott McCallum, 2019. "Singularities and Catastrophes in Economics: Historical Perspectives and Future Directions," Papers 1907.05582, arXiv.org.
    18. Kirman, Alan P. & Laisney, François & Pezanis-Christou, Paul, 2018. "Exploration vs exploitation, impulse balance equilibrium, and a specification test for the El Farol bar problem," ZEW Discussion Papers 18-038, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    19. Georganas, Sotiris, 2011. "English auctions with resale: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 147-166, September.
    20. Golman, Russell, 2012. "Homogeneity bias in models of discrete choice with bounded rationality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 1-11.

    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:gam:jgames:v:13:y:2022:i:3:p:46-:d:842787. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.