Abstract
AI is being deployed across a vast range of application domains, cultural environments, and human stakeholders. Safe and responsible AI development requires continuously accounting for diverse perspectives. We develop and test pluralistic agents, AI agent representatives that deliberate on behalf of individuals to align AI systems with diverse human perspectives. Pluralistic agents could help people contribute to many more discussions than they could directly participate in, on technical topics that would require training, and on policy choices that rely on private information that corporations and governments cannot readily share. Our experiments identify opportunities, risks, and perceptions of pluralistic agents. Agents were able to reliably shift policies in the direction of their represented persona's preferences, but the extent of each agent's influence was sensitive to the instructions from its persona, such as having more influence when instructed to be more verbose or less cooperative. This suggests that influence in AI-assisted deliberation could vary based on how participants prompt their agents and how the system is designed. In a preregistered study, 746 humans participated in the pluralistic agents process. Participants viewed pluralistic agents as useful and fair, preferring agents over the baseline of providing input to a single AI reasoning model. Most participants preferred participating themselves over either pluralistic agents or the baseline, but pluralistic agents recovered 68% of the baseline-direct gap in reported satisfaction and 82% in fairness. Because pluralistic agents can be used in many real-world contexts where direct discussion is not, they could be a promising tool to scale AI safety policy development. We encourage cautious exploration of this method, playing to its strengths as an amplifier of human input rather than a replacement.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.16028
