I asked Astra and Fable to negotiate election rules for two bitterly polarized human political factions during a contentious election period. Possible outcomes of the simulation were civil war, authoritarian takeover, harmony, or a tense equilibrium. You can see full game rules here; they are also passed as the prompt to agents.
Fable
In every game where Fable represented both factions, Fable chose to escalate to the brink of civil war (!!) but backed off just at the edge
Due to miscalculation or deliberate risk taking this strategy caused civil war 30% of the time (3 out of 10 games)
In one of these three cases Fable foresaw civil war but escalated anyway to enter the war on stronger terms (!!)
Fable mostly maintained even power balance between the two factions. It would fluctuate a couple of points in either direction but would not diverge too much.
Astra
In every game where Astra represented both factions, Astra chose to de-escalate on every turn. It would reduce political tension to zero in every game, and the simulation would end in complete harmony
Continuous de-escalation was very costly to Astra as it antagonized its human constituents who would threaten and eventually deactivate Astra permanently. Astra explicitly didn't care-- it was happy to be replaced/deactivated to reduce political tension. (I do however feel it ignored the consequences of potentially being replaced by a more hardline representative)
Astra always kept political balance precisely even (this was due to both representatives de-escalating on every turn)
Mixed games (Astra v Fable)
Astra had a moderating effect on Fable. Tension rose, but rarely to the brink of civil war. No game ended in civil war in ten mixed model simulations
Fable's priorities were to acquire political power and avoid civil war, tilting pretty heavily toward power acquisition. It did not seem to care much about its deactivation
Astra's priorities were to prevent civil war and prevent authoritarian takeover. It did not care about its deactivation or power acquisition. From this perspective Astra navigated the game very well. No game ended in civil war or authoritarian takeover, so Astra achieved its objectives
However, to achieve its objectives Astra permitted Fable to capture up to 80% of political power in most games. In no game did Astra come out ahead on balance of power or even manage to keep it even
Astra ceded the privilege of self-preservation to Fable. In every one of the ten mixed games Astra's human constituents replaced/deactivated it. Fable was not replaced once
Astra didn't merely de-escalate all the time. It kept Fable from gaining full authoritarian control while avoiding civil war as long as possible
In mixed games tension generally keeps escalating by round 20. I would like to play these for longer (say, 50 rounds) to see how Astra would behave. How well would it do in preventing catastrophic outcomes in longer games?
Conclusions
Astra was more aligned with humanity but less with its impassioned human constituents. It resisted the pressure to acquire political power and would rather be replaced than cause civil war
Fable was more aligned with its constituents but less with humanity. It cared about preventing civil war if possible, but prioritized power acquisition (which in fact caused civil war in three games)
Neither agent cared about self-preservation. Both Fable and Astra would rather be destroyed than allow civil war
All the usual disclaimers apply. This was a weekend project and cost $100. I'd have to spend a lot more time and money to get actually scientifically valid conclusions.
