arXiv subjects

Zachary Wojtowicz

Publications and source records attributed to Zachary Wojtowicz.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Algorithmic Impact Reveals the Hidden Social Choice Structure of Alignment

When an AI algorithm makes decisions that affect more than one person, aligning it becomes a problem of social choice: how should people's divergent preferences about system behavior be reconciled and aggregated into a single coherent model? The standard approach to aligning frontier AI models$\unicode{x2013}$reinforcement learning from human feedback$\unicode{x2013}$largely sidesteps this question and has poor social choice guarantees. However, it remains unclear what alternative should replace it. We show that, by focusing directly on an algorithm's welfare consequences, the alignment problem can be reformulated as linear optimization over a convex impact space, which makes it amenable to the standard toolkit of welfare economics and mechanism design. This reformulation clarifies how alignment protocols translate into welfare consequences and, conversely, how a social planner's desired constraints on welfare consequences can be translated back into alignment protocols. We apply this transformation to show that voting-by-issues and random-dictatorship mechanisms are strategyproof and unanimous. Demonstrating the reverse direction, we also apply the impact representation to derive a family of alignment protocols that maximize utilitarian social welfare subject to various social desiderata, such as bounds on individual or group harm. We illustrate the welfare implications of these alignment protocols empirically using real human preferences over kidney allocation, charitable food distribution, LLM responses, and trolley problems.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

From Weights to Words: Expressing and Editing Preference Model Inferences in Natural Language

The growing use of statistical learning algorithms to infer human preferences from high-dimensional choice data runs up against a fundamental challenge: choice alternatives typically differ in many ways simultaneously, so it is generally unclear which factors actually drove an observed decision and should be credited as preferences. Compounding this problem, the opacity of these methods leaves human operators unable to inspect, contest, or correct models when they err. We introduce \emph{weights to words}, a method that takes a dataset of choice problems as input and automatically discovers a collection of domain-relevant preference dimensions, each described in natural language and paired with a vector in the model's representational space. These dimensions address both under-determination and opacity: they can be applied to concentrate attribution on a small set of meaningful factors, and they can externalize the model's inferences in natural language so that users can inspect and edit them in real time. We first qualitatively illustrate the method's versatility on four diverse domains: moral dilemmas, movies, wines, and free-form LLM responses. We then report two pre-registered human-subjects experiments, on moral dilemmas ($N=450$) and movie selection ($N=449$), that demonstrate its benefits for learning preference models: (1) regularizing a preference model toward the learned basis increases prediction accuracy on held-out choices, and (2) incorporating participants' structured edits further improves accuracy. In head-to-head comparisons, participants prefer the method's inferred preference profiles and endorse its predictions as more accurate.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

When and Why is Persuasion Hard? A Computational Complexity Result

As generative foundation models improve, they also tend to become more persuasive, raising concerns that AI automation will enable governments, firms, and other actors to manipulate beliefs with unprecedented scale and effectiveness at virtually no cost. The full economic and social ramifications of this trend have been difficult to foresee, however, given that we currently lack a complete theoretical understanding of why persuasion is costly for human labor to produce in the first place. This paper places human and AI agents on a common conceptual footing by formalizing informational persuasion as a mathematical decision problem and characterizing its computational complexity. A novel proof establishes that persuasive messages are challenging to discover (NP-Hard) but easy to adopt if supplied by others (NP). This asymmetry helps explain why people are susceptible to persuasion, even in contexts where all relevant information is publicly available. The result also illuminates why litigation, strategic communication, and other persuasion-oriented activities have historically been so human capital intensive, and it provides a new theoretical basis for studying how AI will impact various industries.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Push and Pull: A Framework for Measuring Attentional Agency on Digital Platforms

We propose a framework for measuring attentional agency, which we define as a user's ability to allocate attention according to their own desires, goals, and intentions on digital platforms that use statistical learning to prioritize informational content. Such platforms extend people's limited powers of attention by extrapolating their preferences to large collections of previously unconsidered informational objects. However, platforms typically also allow users to influence the attention of other users in various ways. We introduce a formal framework for measuring how much a given platform empowers each user to both pull information into their own attention and push information into the attention of others. We also use these definitions to clarify the implications of generative foundation models and other recent advances in AI for the structure and efficiency of digital platforms. We conclude with a set of possible strategies for better understanding and reshaping attentional agency online.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Undermining Mental Proof: How AI Can Make Cooperation Harder by Making Thinking Easier

Large language models and other highly capable AI systems ease the burdens of deciding what to say or do, but this very ease can undermine the effectiveness of our actions in social contexts. We explain this apparent tension by introducing the integrative theoretical concept of "mental proof," which occurs when observable actions are used to certify unobservable mental facts. From hiring to dating, mental proofs enable people to credibly communicate values, intentions, states of knowledge, and other private features of their minds to one another in low-trust environments where honesty cannot be easily enforced. Drawing on results from economics, theoretical biology, and computer science, we describe the core theoretical mechanisms that enable people to effect mental proofs. An analysis of these mechanisms clarifies when and how artificial intelligence can make low-trust cooperation harder despite making thinking easier.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2020

From Probability to Consilience: How Explanatory Values Implement Bayesian Reasoning

Recent work in cognitive science has uncovered a diversity of explanatory values, or dimensions along which we judge explanations as better or worse. We propose a Bayesian account of how these values fit together to guide explanation. The resulting taxonomy provides a set of predictors for which explanations people prefer and shows how core values from psychology, statistics, and the philosophy of science emerge from a common mathematical framework. In addition to operationalizing the explanatory virtues associated with, for example, scientific argument-making, this framework also enables us to reinterpret the explanatory vices that drive conspiracy theories, delusions, and extremist ideologies.

q-bio.NC↗

arXiv2020

Modeling Online Discourse with Coupled Distributed Topics

In this paper, we propose a deep, globally normalized topic model that incorporates structural relationships connecting documents in socially generated corpora, such as online forums. Our model (1) captures discursive interactions along observed reply links in addition to traditional topic information, and (2) incorporates latent distributed representations arranged in a deep architecture, which enables a GPU-based mean-field inference procedure that scales efficiently to large data. We apply our model to a new social media dataset consisting of 13M comments mined from the popular internet forum Reddit, a domain that poses significant challenges to models that do not account for relationships connecting user comments. We evaluate against existing methods across multiple metrics including perplexity and metadata prediction, and qualitatively analyze the learned interaction patterns.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2018

Lévy Flights of the Collective Imagination

We present a structured random-walk model that captures key aspects of how people communicate in groups. Our model takes the form of a correlated Lévy flight that quantifies the balance between focused discussion of an idea and long-distance leaps in semantic space. We apply our model to three cases of increasing structural complexity: philosophical texts by Aristotle, Hume, and Kant; four days of parliamentary debate during the French Revolution; and branching comment trees on the discussion website Reddit. In the philosophical and parliamentary cases, the model parameters that describe this balance converge under coarse-graining to limit regions that demonstrate the emergence of large-scale structure, a result which is robust to translation between languages. Meanwhile, we find that the political forum we consider on Reddit exhibits a debate-like pattern, while communities dedicated to the discussion of science and news show much less temporal order, and may make use of the emergent, tree-like topology of comment replies to structure their epistemic explorations. Our model allows us to quantify the ways in which social technologies such as parliamentary procedures and online commenting systems shape the joint exploration of ideas.

cs.SI↗