New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

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.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe