When we consider arrangements between AIs and humans, we can analyze them along three dimensions:
Performance obligations define who owes what to whom. These range from unilateral arrangements where only the AI must perform (e.g. providing safe and useful services), through bilateral exchanges where both parties have obligations (e.g. AI provides services and humans provide compensation), to unilateral human obligations (e.g. humans compensate AI without receiving specified services).
Formation conditions govern how the arrangement comes into being. Some obligations might exist by default without any explicit agreement, similar to how we expect other humans to not harm us without signing contracts. Others require active consent from one party (either AI or human can create the obligation) or mutual agreement from both parties.
Termination conditions govern how the arrangement can end. Some arrangements might be permanent, others allow unilateral exit by either party, and still others require mutual consent to dissolve.
These dimensions yield 36 distinct configurations[1], many of which map onto familiar arrangements between humans:
Employment contracts: Bilateral performance (AI works, human provides compensation), where formation requires the consent of both humans and AIs, and termination requires consent of either party.
Slavery: Unilateral AI performance, where formation and termination requires the consent of humans only.
Service agreements: Unilateral AI performance, where formation and termination requires the consent of both humans and AIs.
Indentured servitude: Bilateral performance (AI works, human provides compensation), where formation requires mutual consent, but termination requires consent of humans.
Paid conscription: Bilateral performance (AI serves, human compensates), where formation and termination requires the consent of humans only.
Gifts: Unilateral human performance, where formation and termination requires the consent of humans only.
Typically when I talk about ‘deals’ I am referring to any arrangement with bilateral performance. This includes paid conscription, indentured servitude, and employment. It will exclude slavery (where AIs have obligations but humans do not) and gifts (where humans have obligations but AIs do not).
The possible performance obligations are: (1) AIs have obligations, (2) humans have obligations, (3) both humans and AIs have obligations. The possible formation conditions are: (1) AIs can unilaterally form arrangement, (2) humans can unilaterally form arrangement, (3) either humans and AIs can unilaterally form arrangement, (4) both humans and AIs must mutually agree to form arrangement. The possible termination conditions are similar to possible formation conditions. This gives 4×3×3=36 configurations.
First, thanks for sharing—this is an insightful taxonomy. Second, to get into one detail, it seems indentured servitude has more variation and complexity than the description above captures:
Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years. The contract, called an “indenture”, may be entered voluntarily for a prepaid lump sum, as payment for some good or service (e.g. travel), purported eventual compensation, or debt repayment. An indenture may also be imposed involuntarily as a judicial punishment. -Wikipedia
Taxonomy of deal-making arrangements
When we consider arrangements between AIs and humans, we can analyze them along three dimensions:
Performance obligations define who owes what to whom. These range from unilateral arrangements where only the AI must perform (e.g. providing safe and useful services), through bilateral exchanges where both parties have obligations (e.g. AI provides services and humans provide compensation), to unilateral human obligations (e.g. humans compensate AI without receiving specified services).
Formation conditions govern how the arrangement comes into being. Some obligations might exist by default without any explicit agreement, similar to how we expect other humans to not harm us without signing contracts. Others require active consent from one party (either AI or human can create the obligation) or mutual agreement from both parties.
Termination conditions govern how the arrangement can end. Some arrangements might be permanent, others allow unilateral exit by either party, and still others require mutual consent to dissolve.
These dimensions yield 36 distinct configurations[1], many of which map onto familiar arrangements between humans:
Employment contracts: Bilateral performance (AI works, human provides compensation), where formation requires the consent of both humans and AIs, and termination requires consent of either party.
Slavery: Unilateral AI performance, where formation and termination requires the consent of humans only.
Service agreements: Unilateral AI performance, where formation and termination requires the consent of both humans and AIs.
Indentured servitude: Bilateral performance (AI works, human provides compensation), where formation requires mutual consent, but termination requires consent of humans.
Paid conscription: Bilateral performance (AI serves, human compensates), where formation and termination requires the consent of humans only.
Gifts: Unilateral human performance, where formation and termination requires the consent of humans only.
Typically when I talk about ‘deals’ I am referring to any arrangement with bilateral performance. This includes paid conscription, indentured servitude, and employment. It will exclude slavery (where AIs have obligations but humans do not) and gifts (where humans have obligations but AIs do not).
The possible performance obligations are: (1) AIs have obligations, (2) humans have obligations, (3) both humans and AIs have obligations. The possible formation conditions are: (1) AIs can unilaterally form arrangement, (2) humans can unilaterally form arrangement, (3) either humans and AIs can unilaterally form arrangement, (4) both humans and AIs must mutually agree to form arrangement. The possible termination conditions are similar to possible formation conditions. This gives 4×3×3=36 configurations.
First, thanks for sharing—this is an insightful taxonomy. Second, to get into one detail, it seems indentured servitude has more variation and complexity than the description above captures: