Despite much progress in training artificial intelligence (AI) systems to imitate human language, building agents that use language to communicate intentionally with humans in interactive environments remains a major challenge. We introduce Cicero, the first AI agent to achieve human-level performance inDiplomacy, a strategy game involving both cooperation and competition that emphasizes natural language negotiation and tactical coordination between seven players. Cicero integrates a language model with planning and reinforcement learning algorithms by inferring players’ beliefs and intentions from its conversations and generating dialogue in pursuit of its plans. Across 40 games of an anonymous onlineDiplomacyleague, Cicero achieved more than double the average score of the human players and ranked in the top 10% of participants who played more than one game.

Using chatbots to make recommendations is increasingly popular. The design of recommendation chatbots has mainly been taking an information-centric approach by focusing on the recommended content per se. Limited attention is on how social connection and relational strategies, such as self-disclosure from a chatbot, may influence users' perception and acceptance of the recommendation. In this work, we designed, implemented, and evaluated a social chatbot capable of performing three different levels of self-disclosure: factual information (low), cognitive opinions (medium), and emotions (high). In the evaluation, we recruited 372 participants to converse with the chatbot on two topics: movies and COVID-19 experiences. In each topic, the chatbot conducted small talks and made relevant recommendations to the topic. Participants were randomly assigned to four experimental conditions where the chatbot used factual, cognitive, emotional, and adaptive strategies to perform self-disclosures. By training a text classifier to identify users' level of self-disclosure in real-time, the adaptive chatbot can dynamically match its self-disclosure language to the level of disclosure exhibited by the users. Our results show that users reciprocate with higher-level self-disclosure when a recommendation chatbot displays emotions throughout the conversation. The utilization of emotional disclosure by the chatbot resulted in enhanced enjoyment during interactions and a more favorable perception of the bot. This, in turn, led to greater effectiveness in making recommendations, including a higher likelihood of accepting the recommendation. We discuss the understandings obtained and implications to future design.

As generative AI enables the creation and dissemination of information at massive scale and speed, it is increasingly important to understand how people perceive AI-generated content. One prominent policy proposal requires explicitly labeling AI-generated content to increase transparency and encourage critical thinking about the information, but prior research has not yet tested the effects of such labels. To address this gap, we conducted a survey experiment (N=1,601) on a diverse sample of Americans, presenting participants with an AI-generated message about several public policies (e.g. allowing colleges to pay student-athletes), randomly assigning whether participants were told the message was generated by (i) an expert AI model, (ii) a human policy expert, or (iii) no label. We found that messages were generally persuasive, influencing participants’ views of the policies by 9.74 percentage points on average. However, while 92.0% of participants assigned to the AI and human label conditions believed the authorship labels, labels had no significant effects on participants’ attitude change toward the policies, judgments of message accuracy, nor intentions to share the message with others. These patterns were robust across a variety of participant characteristics, including prior knowledge of the policy, prior experience with AI, political party, education level, and age. Given current levels of trust in AI content, these results imply that, while authorship labels would likely enhance transparency, they are unlikely to substantially affect the persuasiveness of the labeled content, highlighting the need for alternative strategies to address challenges posed by AI-generated information.

End-to-end task-oriented dialog models have achieved promising performance on collaborative tasks where users willingly coordinate with the system to complete a given task. While in non-collaborative settings, for example, negotiation and persuasion, users and systems do not share a common goal. As a result, compared to collaborate tasks, people use social content to build rapport and trust in these non-collaborative settings in order to advance their goals. To handle social content, we introduce a hierarchical intent annotation scheme, which can be generalized to different non-collaborative dialog tasks. Building upon TransferTransfo (Wolf et al. 2019), we propose an end-to-end neural network model to generate diverse coherent responses. Our model utilizes intent and semantic slots as the intermediate sentence representation to guide the generation process. In addition, we design a filter to select appropriate responses based on whether these intermediate representations fit the designed task and conversation constraints. Our non-collaborative dialog model guides users to complete the task while simultaneously keeps them engaged. We test our approach on our newly proposed ANTISCAM dataset and an existing PERSUASIONFORGOOD dataset. Both automatic and human evaluations suggest that our model outperforms multiple baselines in these two non-collaborative tasks.

Existing approaches built separate classifiers to detect nonsense in dialogues. In this paper, we show that without external classifiers, dialogue models can detect errors in their own messages introspectively, by calculating the likelihood of replies that are indicative of poor messages. For example, if an agent believes its partner is likely to respond "I don't understand" to a candidate message, that message may not make sense, so an alternative message should be chosen. We evaluate our approach on a dataset from the game Diplomacy, which contains long dialogues richly grounded in the game state, on which existing models make many errors. We first show that hand-crafted replies can be effective for the task of detecting nonsense in applications as complex as Diplomacy. We then design AutoReply, an algorithm to search for such discriminative replies automatically, given a small number of annotated dialogue examples. We find that AutoReply-generated replies outperform handcrafted replies and perform on par with carefully fine-tuned large supervised models. Results also show that one single reply without much computation overheads can also detect dialogue nonsense reasonably well.