Paolo Bova
Publications
Trust as Monitoring: Evolutionary Dynamics of User Trust and AI Developer Behaviour
AI safety is an increasingly urgent concern as the capabilities and adoption of AI systems grow. Existing evolutionary models of AI governance have primarily examined incentives for safe development and effective regulation, typically representing users' trust as a one-shot adoption choice rather than as a dynamic, evolving process shaped by repeated interactions. We instead model trust as reduced monitoring in a repeated, asymmetric interaction between users and AI developers, where checking AI behaviour is costly. Using evolutionary game theory, we study how user trust strategies and developer choices between safe (compliant) and unsafe (non-compliant) AI co-evolve under different levels of monitoring cost and institutional regimes. We complement the infinite-population replicator analysis with stochastic finite-population dynamics and reinforcement learning (Q-learning) simulations. Across these approaches, we find three robust long-run regimes: no adoption with unsafe development, unsafe but widely adopted systems, and safe systems that are widely adopted. Only the last is desirable, and it arises when penalties for unsafe behaviour exceed the extra cost of safety and users can still afford to monitor at least occasionally. Our results formally support governance proposals that emphasise transparency, low-cost monitoring, and meaningful sanctions, and they show that neither regulation alone nor blind user trust is sufficient to prevent evolutionary drift towards unsafe or low-adoption outcomes.
Capabilities Ain't All You Need: Measuring Propensities in AI
AI evaluation has primarily focused on measuring capabilities, with formal approaches inspired from Item Response Theory (IRT) being increasingly applied. Yet propensities - the tendencies of models to exhibit particular behaviours - play a central role in determining both performance and safety outcomes. However, traditional IRT describes a model's success on a task as a monotonic function of model capabilities and task demands, an approach unsuited to propensities, where both excess and deficiency can be problematic. Here, we introduce the first formal framework for measuring AI propensities by using a bilogistic formulation for model success, which attributes high success probability when the model's propensity is within an "ideal band". Further, we estimate the limits of the ideal band using LLMs equipped with newly developed task-agnostic rubrics. Applying our framework to six families of LLM models whose propensities are incited in either direction, we find that we can measure how much the propensity is shifted and what effect this has on the tasks. Critically, propensities estimated using one benchmark successfully predict behaviour on held-out tasks. Moreover, we obtain stronger predictive power when combining propensities and capabilities than either separately. More broadly, our framework showcases how rigorous propensity measurements can be conducted and how it yields gains over solely using capability evaluations to predict AI behaviour.