Jan 11, 2026
Even the Best AI Would Hurt Us
Chris Santos-Lang
MAD Chairs may be the first work of game theory which combines the real-world significance of the Prisoner’s Dilemma with chess’s defiance of human mastery. This study predicts the consequences of adding AI players to real-world manifestations of MAD Chairs, such as crowded traffic, the limited attention of social media, large representative government, and scarce real estate. oTree code, as typically used for behavioral economics, is open sourced on GitHub, facilitating both reproducibility and extension to human trials, but the subjects for this study take the form of AI which approximate behavior previously observed in human subjects, as well as the current grandmaster strategy and strategies suggested by Gemini, ChatGPT, Claude, DeepSeek and Qwen. The results indicate that adding even the best-behaved AI possible to our ecosystem would hurt us in real-life MAD Chairs situations unless we place trust in machines as one must now do to maintain grandmaster status in chess.
1. There is a clear tournament design, but philosophical conclusions are somewhat an overreach for what the data supports.
2. The core argument is fine and understandable, but overall the length of writing is bloated.
3. Could talk more about the "So what?" question, and potential impacts of what to do with this framework.
Very interesting theoretical work. Thought-provoking and a fresh angle in the ai-safety space. I do feel that this used as a proxy for human behaviour is bit reductive, as it does not capture how humans can strategically adapt, unite in demanding situations to survive. Empirical experiments based on agents to simulate this could yield more interesting ideas.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Even the Best AI Would Hurt Us
},
author={
Chris Santos-Lang
},
date={
1/11/26
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


