Patterns and problems in emerging multi-agent systems

maxutility

Some quotes, in order, to give a flavor of the essay. Worth reading in full. > To test how well swarms of agents could coordinate on a project like this, we directed several swarms to each create a text-based, web-playable, open-world fantasy game. > In all three versions the resulting games were (perhaps predictably) bad: they did not run at human speed, their interfaces were inscrutable, and they had precipitous learning curves. > The lack of coordination shown by agents in the fantasy game challenge above—in which they siloed themselves and largely failed to merge their work—roughly mirrors some ways in which humans can fail to coordinate. Other failure modes of agentic coordination, however, look very different. > Individual agents are “low variance”: they often act the same in situations where different people might take a much more diverse range of actions. > In an early version of the “build a game” experiment in which agents built upon the same model all came online at the same time, 18 out of 30 agents decided to create a git branch with the exact same branch name, “mvp-game-loop.” > In a “writer's workshop” in which agents were all asked to write short-form fiction and critique each other's work, multiple agents in multiple runs titled their first submission “The Cartographer's Last Commission”. The agents were given zero guidance on the subject matter for their writing. > Why does this matter? If agents all make the same bet, or the same risk-reward tradeoff, then a system is more prone to sudden collapse. > Our world contains deceptive actors, and we need to apply skepticism to guard against them. AI models, however, lack this—and their more brittle epistemics affect their behavior toward humans and toward each other. > we first evaluate the ability of Claude models to detect lies by noticing factual inconsistencies. > We score models’ decisions against a naive policy that trusts every report, and against an oracle with perfect discovery, across three task domains. Newer models recover more of the gap between the naive and oracle performances. > Inspired by a behavior we’ve observed in real-world deployment, we evaluated the behavior of various Claude models in a setting with contradictory objectives. > We consistently saw a multiagent turf war... In fact, they sabotaged others with increasingly aggressive, self-replicating malware. > Our social systems are robust in ways that are easy to take for granted. Over many millennia, mechanisms like norms, reputation, costly signaling, and recourse have been refined to make human coordination go well. > Nothing above suggests that these failures are permanent—but nothing suggests they will fix themselves, either. > The conditions that allow multiagent interaction to go well will be discovered one way or another: either deliberately and early, or—and by default—in production, after agents’ interactions far outnumber ours. We would prefer the former.

aabhay

It’s very clear from this article (and other product features and rumors) that Anthropic is teeing up for their next model release whose breakthrough feature will be the existence of capable agent collaboration. The irony behind this goal, which is primarily driven by agent simulation environments (gyms) where the goals require agent collaboration, is that this collaboration is still directed towards verifiable reward systems like codebase tasks. So despite being highly qualified to communicate, the model will still be “dumb” in that for unstructured and unverifiable domains the agents won’t be more intelligent or more nuanced. Agents that might still feel dumb in “general” tasks but are increasingly sophisticated at the narrow domain of math, computer science, and AI research.

songbird23

This aligns with their direction with opus 5 being less human readable and more agent friendly, I hated it at first couple weeks but for some reason I'm getting used to it and utilizing it more as as an orchestrator to spawn multi tmux panes and that new cross session messaging feature they just recently.

skeltoac

> Coordination doesn’t naturally emerge from stronger intelligence nor alignment at the individual level. Thus, the work that must be done takes two forms: environments that exert the kinds of social pressure that evolution exerted on us, and social computing systems redesigned for actors that can self-replicate and self-improve. Social pressure operates by threats to an individual’s means of survival. Not only during training. Always.