Social Coordination: Principles, Artefacts and Theories (SOCIAL.PATH)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Social Coordination: Principles, Artefacts and Theories (SOCIAL.PATH) Harko Verhagen, Pablo Noriega, Tina Balke and Marina de Vos (editors) AISB Convention 2013 • University of Exeter • 3rd–5th April, 2013 Foreword from the Convention Chairs This volume forms the proceedings of one of eight co-located symposia held at the AISB Convention 2013 that took place 3rd-5th April 2013 at the University of Exeter, UK. The convention consisted of these symposia together in four parallel tracks with five plenary talks; all papers other than the plenaries were given as talks within the symposia. This symposium-based format, which has been the standard for AISB conventions for many years, encourages collabora- tion and discussion among a wide variety of disciplines. Although each symposium is self contained, the convention as a whole represents a diverse array of topics from philosophy, psychology, computer science and cognitive science under the common umbrella of artificial intelligence and the simulation of behaviour. We would like to thank the symposium organisers and their programme committees for their hard work in publicising their symposium, attracting and reviewing submissions and compiling this volume. Without these interesting, high quality symposia the convention would not be possible. Dr Ed Keedwell & Prof. Richard Everson AISB 2013 Convention Chairs Published by The Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour http://www.aisb.org.uk ISBN: 978-1-908187-36-9 SOCIAL.PATH 2013 Table of Contents Table of Contents Social Mind As Coordination Artifact . 1 Cristiano Castelfranchi Coordination: why is it so difficult to model?. 2 Nigel Gilbert Towards Electronic Order . 3 Michael Luck Factors in the emergence and sustainability of self-regulation . 5 Chris Bevan, Lia Emanuel, Julian Padget, Juani Swart, John Powell and Shadi Basurra Experimental Interaction Science . 13 Flavio S Correa Da Silva, David S Robertson and Wamberto Vasconcelos Situational Analysis of Games. 18 Corinna Elsenbroich Theory in social simulation: Status-Power theory, national culture and emergence of the glass ceiling . 21 Gert Jan Hofstede An Idea for Modelling Group Dynamics in Autonomous Synthetic Characters . 29 Naziya Hussaini and Ruth Aylett Soil and Water conservation AdoPtion: the SWAP model - theory and policy applications using agent-based modeling. 35 Peter Johnson Regulism, regularism and some limitations of agent-based modelling . 43 Rodger Kibble MoK: Stigmergy Meets Chemistry to Exploit Social Actions for Coordination Purposes . 50 Stefano Mariani and Andrea Omicini Sociology and AI: Requirements and achievements for walking towards a crossfertilization integration . 58 Francisco J. Miguel Modelling Normative Awareness: First Considerations. 65 Paul Rauwolf, Tina Balke and Marina De Vos A workflow for an interdisciplinary methodology to build computational cognitive models of human social behaviours . 72 Jordi Sabater-Mir A simple logic of tool manipulation (extended abstract) . 80 Nicolas Troquard Towards a Design Framework for Controlled Hybrid Social Games . 83 Harko Verhagen, Pablo Noriega and Mark d'Inverno 1 SOCIAL.PATH 2013 Table of Contents Ethnoarchaeology meets Artificial Intelligence An ongoing experience . 88 Assumpcio Vila, Manuela Perez, Jordi Estevez, Jordi Sabater-Mir, Daniel Villatoro and Adria Vila Breaking immersion by creating social unbelievabilty . 92 Henrik Warpefelt and Bj¨ornStr˚a˚at 2 1 Social Coordination: Principles, Artifacts and Theories Tina Balke1 and Pablo Noriega2 and Harko Verhagen3 and Marina De Vos4 Preface policy-making and (iv) kindle partnerships among participants. To achieve these objectives, we invited submisison of position pa- Social science concepts such as norms, markets and rationality have pers, provocative papers, early, on-going and mature research papers, found their way into computer science in general and agent-based works discussing opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration or research in particular where they model coordination and coopera- policy guidelines and recommendations. We received 19 papers of tion between largely independent autonomous computational enti- which we selected 17. ties. Vice versa, in the social sciences - sociology, philosophy, eco- These papers will give a short presentation slot, leaving ample nomics, legal science, etc. - computational models and their imple- time for discussion. Supplementing these presentations, we invited mentations have been used to investigate the rigour of theories and three invited speakers: Prof. Nigel Gilbert, from the University of hypothesis. The use of these social science concepts in computer sci- Surrey providing his view from the social sciences, Prof. Michael ence is sometimes on a more metaphorical level than a detailed im- Luck, King’s College London, offering a computer science perspec- plementation of the ”real” concept and the theories surrounding it. tive and Prof. Cristiano Castelfranchi, Institute of Reseach Psychol- Equally, the computer models used in the social sciences are not al- ogy of Italian National Research council, will give his view on com- ways convincing. bining both disciplines. After a history of around 30 years of agents in computer science, We hope you enjoy the workshop and are looking forward to your the meeting of these two worlds is long overdue. This symposium views, aims to provide a meeting point for members of these communities to converse on principles, theories and artefacts for social coordination with the aim of facilitating future interactions and research. Tina, Pablo, Harko, Marina The theme of social coordination was chosen because convergence is evident in this area. 1 CRESS, University of Surrey, UK, email: [email protected] This three-day workshop aims to (i) outline a shared perspec- 2 IIIA-CSIC, Spain, email: [email protected] 3 tive on the field (ii) identify challenges and opportunities for cross- Stockholm University, Sweden, email: [email protected] 4 University of Bath, UK, email: [email protected] disciplinary collaboration (iii) provide guidelines for research and 2 Social Mind As Coordination Artifact Cristiano Castelfranchi 1 Why human intelligence is social in its origin and function? We are the outcome of the “spontaneous” (Hayek) organization of society (quite) intelligent, autonomous, self-motivated agents but in a “com- and of the “invisible hand” (A. Smith) is not the best possible or mon world”: dependence, strategic interaction, power. a good result. We let emerge and we (unintentionally) reproduce But: What does “intelligence” mean? What does “social” mean? some equilibrium that can be very bad for the large majority of “Social” doesn’t mean “collective”: social actions, social pow- people, reflecting the inequality of powers and/or our ignorance ers, social beliefs and emotions, ... are at the individual action and and impotence. mind level; for (positive or negative) interactions. This social layer of B) We have to make explicit the “mental mediators” of social phe- mind and action is the presupposition and ground of “collective” be- nomena / objects (like norms, organization, power, institutions, haviors, intelligence, institutions, organizations. No collective tricks money, ...). What the agents have to have in mind for producing without social minds. that collective/sociological phenomenon? Coordination is through “Social” doesn’t mean pro-social, cooperative. Also exploitation mind; not necessarily through “sharing”. and domination and subjection are social; conflicts and struggles are social interactions; and also conflicts requires “coordination”. In this perspective “social” (in the sense of “socially shaped”) minds [And“cooperation” is not equal to “exchange”]. are “coordination artifacts”. Cognitive and externalized Coordina- “Coordination” doesn’t mean that X predicts the behavior of Y tion Artifacts: and the possible “interferences” with his own behaviors/goals to be avoided or exploited, and thus adjusts his own behavior to Y’s ex- - cultural technical artifacts embodied in our mind and mental pro- pected behavior; and Y does the same. “Coordination” means also to cessing: language, time, computing, .. ; intentionally adjust (modify) the behavior of the other for our conve- - of special interest the “deontic” tricks: conventions, social norms, nience, by modifying his beliefs, emotions, and goals. We coordinate permissions, agreements (commitment and trust), legal norms and with the others by “influencing” them. Social power over the others authorities, ... ; common values,..; is also for that. “Theory of Mind” and “mind reading” ability are for - “institutional” effects, actions, and roles; that; not just for predicting and explaining but for changing those be- - knowledge as collective institution; script and frames; education haviors/minds. “Coordination” and mind reading and mutual under- and instruction;... standing, do not require language; they can be based on other forms of communication (behavioral and stigmergic: coordination artifacts, like language); or on no communication at all, just signs/cues read- ing. Collective coordinated actions/behaviors do not necessarily re- quire shared beliefs or goals, collective mind, joint action, accep- tance, .... There is efficient cooperation without joint mental plans, and even without plans at all. Coordination and cooperation can just emerge by self-organization. This is the problem: What is the relation between Emergence and Cognition? Between what we understand