Researchers have succeeded in developing the smallest fully autonomous robot in history. It measures less than 1 millimeter and can swim underwater for months powered only by light. Miniaturization has long been a challenge in the history of robotics . While engineers have made great strides in the miniaturization of electronics in the past few decades, builders of miniature autonomous robots have not been able to meet the goal of getting them under 1 millimeter in size. This is because small arms and legs are fragile and difficult to manufacture.

Learning algorithms are often used to make decisions in sequential decision-making environments. In multi-agent settings, the decisions of each agent can affect the utilities/losses of the other agents. Therefore, if an agent is good at anticipating the behavior of the other agents, in particular how they will make decisions in each round as a function of their experience that far, it could try to judiciously make its own decisions over the rounds of the interaction so as to influence the other agents to behave in a way that ultimately benefits its own utility. In this paper, we study repeated two-player games involving two types of agents: a learner, which employs an online learning algorithm to choose its strategy in each round; and an optimizer, which knows the learner's utility function and the learner's online learning algorithm. The optimizer wants to plan ahead to maximize its own utility, while taking into account the learner's behavior.

We study the problem of augmenting online algorithms with machine learned (ML) advice. In particular, we consider the \emph{multi-shop ski rental} (MSSR) problem, which is a generalization of the classical ski rental problem. In MSSR, each shop has different prices for buying and renting a pair of skis, and a skier has to make decisions on when and where to buy. We obtain both deterministic and randomized online algorithms with provably improved performance when either a single or multiple ML predictions are used to make decisions. These online algorithms have no knowledge about the quality or the prediction error type of the ML prediction. The performance of these online algorithms are robust to the poor performance of the predictors, but improve with better predictions. Extensive experiments using both synthetic and real world data traces verify our theoretical observations and show better performance against algorithms that purely rely on online decision making.

We have only limited understanding of how and why large language models (LLMs) respond in the ways that they do. Their neural networks have proven challenging to interpret, and we are only beginning to tease out the function of individual neurons and circuits within them. However, another path to understanding these systems is to investigate and develop their capacity to explain their own functioning. Here, we show that i) LLMs can accurately describe quantitative features of their own internal processes during certain kinds of decision-making and ii) that it is possible to improve these capabilities through training. To do so, we fine-tuned GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini to make decisions in a wide variety of complex contexts (e.g., choosing between condos, loans, vacations, etc.) according to randomly-generated, quantitative preferences about how to weigh different attributes (e.g., the relative importance of natural light versus quiet surroundings for condos). We demonstrate that the LLMs can accurately report these preferences (i.e., the weights that they learned to give to different attributes during decision-making). Next, we demonstrate that these LLMs can be fine-tuned to explain their decision-making even more accurately. Finally, we demonstrate that this training generalizes: It improves the ability of the models to accurately explain how they make other complex decisions, not just decisions they have been fine-tuned to make. This work is a step towards training LLMs to accurately and broadly report on their own internal processes -- a possibility that would yield substantial benefits for interpretability, control, and safety.

As artificial intelligence rapidly transforms society, developers and policymakers struggle to anticipate which applications will face public moral resistance. We propose that these judgments are not idiosyncratic but systematic and predictable. In a large, preregistered study (N = 587, U.S. representative sample), we used a comprehensive taxonomy of 100 AI applications spanning personal and organizational contexts-including both functional uses and the moral treatment of AI itself. In participants' collective judgment, applications ranged from highly unacceptable to fully acceptable. We found this variation was strongly predictable: five core moral qualities-perceived risk, benefit, dishonesty, unnaturalness, and reduced accountability-collectively explained over 90% of the variance in acceptability ratings. The framework demonstrated strong predictive power across all domains and successfully predicted individual-level judgments for held-out applications. These findings reveal that a structured moral psychology underlies public evaluation of new technologies, offering a powerful tool for anticipating public resistance and guiding responsible innovation in AI.

We introduce a framework for modeling decisions with axioms that are statements about decisions, e.g., ethical constraints. Using our framework we define a taxonomy of decision axioms based on their structural properties and demonstrate a tension between the use of axioms to make decisions and the use of axioms to evaluate decisions which we call the Decision-Evaluation Paradox. We argue that the Decision-Evaluation Paradox arises with realistic axiom structures, and the paradox illuminates why one must be exceptionally careful when training models on decision data or applying axioms to make and evaluate decisions.

AI is changing the grid. Could it help more than it harms? Massive data centers are pushing energy demand higher. Some people claim that AI will be a net benefit for the grid. The rising popularity of AI is driving an increase in electricity demand so significant it has the potential to reshape our grid. Energy consumption by data centers has gone up by 80% from 2020 to 2025 and is likely to keep growing.

The rapid rise of AI-based autonomous agents is transforming human society and economic systems, as these entities increasingly exhibit human-like or superhuman intelligence. From excelling at complex games like Go to tackling diverse general-purpose tasks with large language and multimodal models, AI agents are evolving from specialized tools into dynamic participants in social and economic ecosystems. Their autonomy and decision-making capabilities are poised to impact industries, professions, and human lives profoundly, raising critical questions about their integration into economic activities, potential ethical concerns, and the balance between their utility and safety. To address these challenges, this paper presents ten principles of AI agent economics, offering a framework to understand how AI agents make decisions, influence social interactions, and participate in the broader economy. Drawing on economics, decision theory, and ethics, we explore fundamental questions, such as whether AI agents might evolve from tools into independent entities, their impact on labor markets, and the ethical safeguards needed to align them with human values. These principles build on existing economic theories while accounting for the unique traits of AI agents, providing a roadmap for their responsible integration into human systems. Beyond theoretical insights, this paper highlights the urgency of future research into AI trustworthiness, ethical guidelines, and regulatory oversight. As we enter a transformative era, this work serves as both a guide and a call to action, ensuring AI agents contribute positively to human progress while addressing risks tied to their unprecedented capabilities.

Learning algorithms are often used to make decisions in sequential decision-making environments. In multi-agent settings, the decisions of each agent can affect the utilities/losses of the other agents. Therefore, if an agent is good at anticipating the behavior of the other agents, in particular how they will make decisions in each round as a function of their experience that far, it could try to judiciously make its own decisions over the rounds of the interaction so as to influence the other agents to behave in a way that ultimately benefits its own utility. In this paper, we study repeated two-player games involving two types of agents: a learner, which employs an online learning algorithm to choose its strategy in each round; and an optimizer, which knows the learner's utility function and the learner's online learning algorithm. The optimizer wants to plan ahead to maximize its own utility, while taking into account the learner's behavior.

Second Workshop on Metacognitive Prediction of AI Behavior Exploring Cognitive Attributes in Financial Decision-Making Mallika Mainali, Drexel University, Philadelphia, P A, 19104, USA Rosina O. Weber, Drexel University, Philadelphia, P A, 19104, USA Abstract--Cognitive attributes are fundamental to metacognition, shaping how individuals process information, evaluate choices, and make decisions. T o develop metacognitive artificial intelligence (AI) models that reflect human reasoning, it is essential to account for the attributes that influence reasoning patterns and decision-maker behavior, often leading to different or even conflicting choices. This makes it crucial to incorporate cognitive attributes in designing AI models that align with human decision-making processes, especially in high-stakes domains such as finance, where decisions have significant real-world consequences. However, existing AI alignment research has primarily focused on value alignment, often overlooking the role of individual cognitive attributes that distinguish decision-makers. T o address this issue, this paper (1) analyzes the literature on cognitive attributes, (2) establishes five criteria for defining them, and (3) categorizes 19 domain-specific cognitive attributes relevant to financial decision-making.