arXiv (All)
open access
How Far Can an Agent Push? Trust-Safety Margins in Live Language-Based Economic Games
Game theory identifies when a strategic action should be accepted, but not how long a live, language-based counterpart will continue to accept it. We entered the GLEE competition in its final week with one protected agent, Milton, and four instrument agents that ran deterministic, per-game randomize
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- When Numbers Start Talking: Numerical Signalling and Strategic Behaviour Among LLMs#1187711
- Can LLMs Replace Economic Choice Prediction Labs? The Case of Language-based Persuasion Games#612717
- Can LLMs Replace Economic Choice Prediction Labs? The Case of Language-based Persuasion Games#611240
- Safety Theatre And The Suppression of Agency#726728
- Over-Defense in Coding Agents Begins at Silent Forks#1389895
Record · ID 1403225
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive