  In this study, we investigate the capacity of large language models (LLMs),
specifically GPT-3.5, to operationalise natural language descriptions of
cooperative, competitive, altruistic, and self-interested behavior in social
dilemmas. Our focus is on the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, a classic example of
a non-zero-sum interaction, but our broader research program encompasses a
range of experimental economics scenarios, including the ultimatum game,
dictator game, and public goods game. Using a within-subject experimental
design, we instantiated LLM-generated agents with various prompts that conveyed
different cooperative and competitive stances. We then assessed the agents'
level of cooperation in the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, taking into account
their responsiveness to the cooperative or defection actions of their partners.
Our results provide evidence that LLMs can translate natural language
descriptions of altruism and selfishness into appropriate behaviour to some
extent, but exhibit limitations in adapting their behavior based on conditioned
reciprocity. The observed pattern of increased cooperation with defectors and
decreased cooperation with cooperators highlights potential constraints in the
LLM's ability to generalize its knowledge about human behavior in social
dilemmas. We call upon the research community to further explore the factors
contributing to the emergent behavior of LLM-generated agents in a wider array
of social dilemmas, examining the impact of model architecture, training
parameters, and various partner strategies on agent behavior. As more advanced
LLMs like GPT-4 become available, it is crucial to investigate whether they
exhibit similar limitations or are capable of more nuanced cooperative
behaviors, ultimately fostering the development of AI systems that better align
with human values and social norms.
