Bots Outperform Humans if They Impersonate Us

Bots masquerading as humans in a game outperformed their human opponents—but the their superiority vanished when their machine identity was revealed. Christopher Intagliata reports. 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Last year, Google unveiled Duplex, its artificial-intelligence-powered assistant.

“How can I help you?”

“Hi, I’m calling to book a women’s haircut for a client. Um, I’m looking for something on May 3rd.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


That’s a robot.

“Sure, give me one second.”

“Mm-hmm.”

“For what time are you looking for around?” 

The machine assistant never identified itself as a bot in the demo. And Google got a lot of flak for that. They later clarified that they would only launch the tech with “disclosure built in.”

But therein lies a dilemma, because a new study in the journal Nature Machine Intelligence suggests that a bot is most effective when it hides its machine identity. [Fatimah Ishowo-Oloko et al., Behavioural evidence for a transparency–efficiency tradeoff in human–machine cooperation]

“That is, if it is allowed to pose as human.”

Talal Rahwan is a computational social scientist at New York University’s campus in Abu Dhabi. His team recruited nearly 700 online volunteers to play the prisoner’s dilemma—a classic game of negotiation, trust and deception—against either humans or bots. Half the time, the human players were told the truth about who they were matched up against. The other half, they were told they were playing a bot when they were actually playing a human or that they were battling a human when, in fact, it was only a bot. 

And the scientists found that bots actually did remarkably well in this game of negotiation—if they impersonated humans. 

“When the machine is reported to be human, it outperforms humans themselves. It’s more persuasive; it’s able to induce cooperation and persuade the other opponent to cooperate more than humans themselves.”

But whenever the bots’ true nature was disclosed, their superiority vanished. And Rahwan says that points to a fundamental conundrum. We can now build really efficient bots—that perform tasks even better than we can—but their efficiency may be linked to their ability to hide their identity—which, you know, feels ethically problematic. 

“Those very humans who will be deceived by the machine, they are the ones who ultimately have to make that choice. Otherwise it would violate fundamental values of autonomy, respect and dignity for humans.”

It’s not realistic to ask people for consent before every bot-human interaction. That would, of course, reveal the bots’ true identity. So we, as a society, will have to figure out if making our lives a bit easier is worth interacting with bots that pretend to be human.

—Christopher Intagliata 

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe