Summary of Intuitions Of Compromise: Utilitarianism Vs. Contractualism, by Jared Moore et al.
Intuitions of Compromise: Utilitarianism vs. Contractualism
by Jared Moore, Yejin Choi, Sydney Levine
First submitted to arxiv on: 7 Oct 2024
Categories
- Main: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
- Secondary: Computer Science and Game Theory (cs.GT)
GrooveSquid.com Paper Summaries
GrooveSquid.com’s goal is to make artificial intelligence research accessible by summarizing AI papers in simpler terms. Each summary below covers the same AI paper, written at different levels of difficulty. The medium difficulty and low difficulty versions are original summaries written by GrooveSquid.com, while the high difficulty version is the paper’s original abstract. Feel free to learn from the version that suits you best!
| Summary difficulty | Written by | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| High | Paper authors | High Difficulty Summary Read the original abstract here |
| Medium | GrooveSquid.com (original content) | Medium Difficulty Summary A new study compares two approaches to decision-making: the traditional utilitarian method, which adds up individual preferences, and a contractualist approach that seeks agreement. Researchers applied these methods to a social decision-making context, exploring how groups aggregate their preferences. Surprisingly, participants preferred the contractualist approach over the utilitarian one. The study also compared human judgments with those of large language models (LLMs), revealing significant differences between model and human preferences. |
| Low | GrooveSquid.com (original content) | Low Difficulty Summary A team of researchers looked at two ways to make decisions: adding up individual preferences (utilitarian) or working together to find an agreement (contractualist). They tested these methods on groups making choices. People preferred the contractualist way, which is different from what we usually do. The study also compared how humans and big computer models think about decision-making, and found that they don’t always agree. |
