Widening the menu of AI delegates can reshape market equilibria and prompt proactive regulatory choices; firms may strategically release technologies they never use to steer regulators and extract advantage—a 'Poisoned Apple' that harms rivals and fairness.

Main Finding

The paper documents a systematic strategic vulnerability in regulated markets when parties can expand their available AI delegates: releasing a new AI model can be used as a threat to manipulate a regulator’s choice of market design, improving the releaser’s payoff at the opponent’s expense even when the new model is never actually adopted. The authors call this the “Poisoned Apple” effect. Across >50,000 simulated meta-games using real LLM-vs-LLM interaction data, this effect is common (roughly one-third of opposing-payoff reversals) and is amplified — not mitigated — when regulators are given limited power to ban models.

Key Points

• Meta-game structure: regulator first chooses a Market (environment/configuration) to maximize a social objective (Fairness or Efficiency); the two players then simultaneously choose from an available set of AI technologies (LLM delegates); payoffs arise from the resulting equilibrium play.
• Data-driven, naturalistic finding: analyses are based on GLEE interaction data (13 state-of-the-art LLMs, >580k strategic decisions, 1,320 configurations) rather than hand-crafted theoretical examples.
• Poisoned Apple effect: a party releases a new technology so that the regulator, anticipating possible equilibria, switches to a different market in response — the switch benefits the releaser even though neither party uses the new tech in the final equilibrium.
• Frequency and scale:
  • The study analyzes >50,000 meta-games and finds frequent cases where an expansion of technologies causes opposing payoff changes (one player gains, the other loses).
  • Approximately one-third of these opposing-payoff reversals occur with zero adoption of the new model — i.e., classic Poisoned Apple cases.
  • If the regulator does not re-optimize market design following a release (regulatory inertia), the regulator’s objective metric worsens in roughly 40% of cases.
• Role of regulatory objective: expansions tend to help when the regulator optimizes Efficiency but often harm outcomes when the regulator optimizes Fairness.
• Banning backfires: allowing the regulator to ban up to N models (ban-budget) increases the Poisoned Apple rate. Even a single-ban power (N = 1) substantially amplifies the effect across game families and both regulator objectives; the amplification is non-monotonic in N and can peak at moderate ban budgets.
• Adoption as a signal: improvements in the regulator’s metric typically occur when the new technology is actually adopted in equilibrium; harms are frequently associated with the new technology acting as a latent threat (available but unused).

Data & Methods

• Dataset: GLEE (Games in Language-based Economic Environments) — simulated multi-turn strategic interactions among 13 contemporary LLMs across three canonical game families: Bargaining (alternating-offers resource division), Negotiation (bilateral trade with private information), and Persuasion (sender-receiver cheap-talk).
• Experimental design:
  • Markets: each Market is a configuration of structural parameters (Information Structure, Communication Form, Game Horizon) that materially change strategic incentives.
  • Meta-game procedure: for a baseline technology subset S (2 ≤ |S| < 13) the regulator chooses the market maximizing its chosen metric (Fairness or Efficiency). Then a single additional technology is made available (technology expansion). The new equilibrium for each market is solved (mixed-strategy Nash equilibria over chosen delegates), the regulator re-optimizes market choice, and resulting payoffs/metrics are compared pre- vs. post-expansion.
  • Metrics: player expected payoffs (from equilibrium), social Efficiency (total welfare), and Fairness (minimizing payoff disparity).
  • Scale: >50,000 meta-games across combinations of markets, technology additions, and regulator objectives. Also ran experiments where the regulator can ban up to N technologies (jointly optimizing market and ban set) to test the effect of limited technology restriction.
• Key empirical analyses: frequency counts of opposing payoff shifts, fraction of those with zero adoption of the new technology (Poisoned Apple), correlation between adoption rate and metric improvement vs. deterioration, rate of metric harm under regulatory inertia, and Poisoned Apple rate as a function of ban budget N.

Implications for AI Economics

• Technology availability is a strategic policy lever: mere availability of a model (API, open weights, announced release) can change the equilibrium of regulated markets via regulator responses, so model-release strategy has externalities beyond direct adoption.
• Market-design and technology-policy must be co-designed: treating market rules and technology availability as separable policy levers is unsafe; regulators should account for endogenous strategic announcements and latent threats when choosing market rules.
• Static regulation is fragile; regulators need dynamic re-optimization: the study shows substantial harm if regulators fail to re-evaluate market design after technology changes. Continuous monitoring and periodic re-optimization or adaptive rule mechanisms are necessary.
• Limited banning can worsen outcomes: giving regulators modest banning power (the realistic policy regime) can increase vulnerability to manipulation because it increases the regulator’s optimization space and thus the potential for pre/post optima divergence. Policy proposals that rely on partial bans should be re-examined.
• Practical policy responses to explore:
  • Mechanisms that jointly optimize market rules and permissible technologies accounting for strategic release incentives (e.g., commitment devices, randomized rule selection, or dynamic mechanisms that reduce the value of threat-based manipulation).
  • Disclosure and release governance to reduce the credibility or payoff of “poisoned” releases (e.g., staged rollouts tied to observable adoption/use conditions).
  • Designing regulator objectives and tie-breaking rules that are robust to latent threats (e.g., penalize outcomes that rely on availability-only threats or require stability guarantees across small unilateral expansions).
• Research directions: formal models of strategic release incentives, robustness of mechanism design to endogenous strategy-space expansion, empirical work on real-world markets where API availability or model announcements affected platform/regulator choices.

Short takeaway: In mediated markets with AI delegates, availability can be as strategically powerful as usage. Regulators must anticipate and design for strategic technology releases — simple remedies like modest bans can make things worse — so market design and technology governance must be jointly, dynamically engineered.