The idea that superintelligent robots are alien invaders coming to "steal our jobs" reveals profound shortcomings in the way we think about work, value, and intelligence itself. Labor is not a zero-sum game, and robots aren't an "other" that competes with us. Like any technology, they're part of us, growing out of civilization the same way hair and nails grow out of a living body. When we "other" a fruit-picking robot – thinking of it as a competitor in a zero-sum game – we take our eyes off the real problem: the human who used to pick the fruit is considered disposable by the farm's owners and by society when no longer fit for that job. This implies that the human laborer was already being treated like a non-person – that is, like a machine.

Modern Reinforcement Learning (RL) algorithms are able to outperform humans in a wide variety of tasks. Multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) settings present additional challenges, and successful cooperation in mixed-motive groups of agents depends on a delicate balancing act between individual and group objectives. Social conventions and norms, often inspired by human institutions, are used as tools for striking this balance. In this paper, we examine a fundamental, well-studied social convention that underlies cooperation in both animal and human societies: dominance hierarchies. We adapt the ethological theory of dominance hierarchies to artificial agents, borrowing the established terminology and definitions with as few amendments as possible. We demonstrate that populations of RL agents, operating without explicit programming or intrinsic rewards, can invent, learn, enforce, and transmit a dominance hierarchy to new populations. The dominance hierarchies that emerge have a similar structure to those studied in chickens, mice, fish, and other species.

Patterns of wins and losses in pairwise contests, such as occur in sports and games, consumer research and paired comparison studies, and human and animal social hierarchies, are commonly analyzed using probabilistic models that allow one to quantify the strength of competitors or predict the outcome of future contests. Here we generalize this approach to incorporate two additional features: an element of randomness or luck that leads to upset wins, and a "depth of competition" variable that measures the complexity of a game or hierarchy. Fitting the resulting model to a large collection of data sets we estimate depth and luck in a range of games, sports, and social situations. In general, we find that social competition tends to be "deep," meaning it has a pronounced hierarchy with many distinct levels, but also that there is often a nonzero chance of an upset victory, meaning that dominance challenges can be won even by significant underdogs. Competition in sports and games, by contrast, tends to be shallow and in most cases there is little evidence of upset wins, beyond those already implied by the shallowness of the hierarchy.

The task of ranking individuals or teams, based on a set of comparisons between pairs, arises in various contexts, including sporting competitions and the analysis of dominance hierarchies among animals and humans. Given data on which competitors beat which others, the challenge is to rank the competitors from best to worst. Here we study the problem of computing rankings when there are multiple, potentially conflicting modes of comparison, such as multiple types of dominance behaviors among animals. We assume that we do not know a priori what information each behavior conveys about the ranking, or even whether they convey any information at all. Nonetheless we show that it is possible to compute a ranking in this situation and present a fast method for doing so, based on a combination of an expectation-maximization algorithm and a modified Bradley-Terry model. We give a selection of example applications to both animal and human competition.

Chickens don't have a reputation for being the brightest group in the animal kingdom, but a new study has found we may have dramatically underestimated their brainpower. Researchers found that chickens have distinct personalities, numerical abilities and show self-awareness, among other traits. Dr Lori Marino, a lecturer in Neuroscience at Emory University and the author of the review, said: 'They (chickens) are perceived as lacking most of the psychological characteristics we recognize in other intelligent animals and are typically thought of as possessing a low level of intelligence compared with other animals.' According to Dr. Marino, 'chickens are behaviourally sophisticated, discriminating among individuals, exhibiting Machiavellian-like social interactions, and learning socially in complex ways that are similar to humans.' In a 2005 study, researchers found that domestic chickens are capable of self-control.