The rapid development of advanced AI agents and the imminent deployment of many instances of these agents will give rise to multi-agent systems of unprecedented complexity. These systems pose novel and under-explored risks. In this report, we provide a structured taxonomy of these risks by identifying three key failure modes (miscoordination, conflict, and collusion) based on agents' incentives, as well as seven key risk factors (information asymmetries, network effects, selection pressures, destabilising dynamics, commitment problems, emergent agency, and multi-agent security) that can underpin them. We highlight several important instances of each risk, as well as promising directions to help mitigate them. By anchoring our analysis in a range of real-world examples and experimental evidence, we illustrate the distinct challenges posed by multi-agent systems and their implications for the safety, governance, and ethics of advanced AI.

Are large language models (LLMs) biased towards text generated by LLMs over text authored by humans, leading to possible anti-human bias? Utilizing a classical experimental design inspired by employment discrimination studies, we tested widely-used LLMs, including GPT-3.5 and GPT4, in binary-choice scenarios. These involved LLM-based agents selecting between products and academic papers described either by humans or LLMs under identical conditions. Our results show a consistent tendency for LLM-based AIs to prefer LLM-generated content. This suggests the possibility of AI systems implicitly discriminating against humans, giving AI agents an unfair advantage.

Large language models (LLMs) like GPT are often conceptualized as passive predictors, simulators, or even stochastic parrots. We instead conceptualize LLMs by drawing on the theory of active inference originating in cognitive science and neuroscience. We examine similarities and differences between traditional active inference systems and LLMs, leading to the conclusion that, currently, LLMs lack a tight feedback loop between acting in the world and perceiving the impacts of their actions, but otherwise fit in the active inference paradigm. We list reasons why this loop may soon be closed, and possible consequences of this including enhanced model self-awareness and the drive to minimize prediction error by changing the world.

To what extent are effectiveness estimates of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) against COVID-19 influenced by the assumptions our models make? To answer this question, we investigate 2 state-of-the-art NPI effectiveness models and propose 6 variants that make different structural assumptions. In particular, we investigate how well NPI effectiveness estimates generalise to unseen countries, and their sensitivity to unobserved factors. Models that account for noise in disease transmission compare favourably. We further evaluate how robust estimates are to different choices of epidemiological parameters and data. Focusing on models that assume transmission noise, we find that previously published results are robust across these choices and across different models. Finally, we mathematically ground the interpretation of NPI effectiveness estimates when certain common assumptions do not hold.