A misaligned AI can at most boost a human's correct-bit guesses by 50% relative to relying on the prior, and the gain shrinks for nearly independent information — yet a constructed six-bit example shows gains can exceed 25%, ruling out a universal 5/4 cap.

Main Finding

The paper gives worst-case, provable bounds on how much a misaligned AI sender can still help (or harm) a human receiver in a Bayesian persuasion setting where the state is an n-bit string, the receiver’s utility is additive coordinatewise correctness, and the sender’s objective is to make the receiver guess 1s. The principal universal result is: - For any prior μ on {0,1}^n, the receiver utility achievable among sender-optimal signaling schemes satisfies R_max(μ) ≤ (n + R_0(μ)) / 2, which implies the universal ratio bound R_max(μ) / R_0(μ) ≤ 3/2. Refinements show much tighter limits for product-like priors and a concrete correlated prior shows the universal constant must be at least 39/31 ≈ 1.258 (> 5/4).

Key Points

• Model specifics
  • World state X ∈ {0,1}^n with prior μ.
  • Receiver chooses an n-bit action; payoff = number of coordinates correct (additive).
  • Sender observes X, commits to a signaling scheme to maximize number of coordinates guessed as 1.
  • Weak obedience: posterior marginals of coordinates determine the receiver’s recommended bits (ties arbitrary).
  • Benchmarks: R_0(μ) = receiver utility from using only the prior; R_max(μ) = maximum receiver utility among sender-optimal schemes; S*(μ) = sender’s optimal value.
• Universal bound
  • Using simple accounting lemmas (sender–receiver tradeoff and a prior identity) plus a constructive OR-scheme lower bound on S*(μ), the authors prove R_max(μ) ≤ (n + R_0(μ)) / 2 and hence R_max/R_0 ≤ 3/2.
• Product priors and near-product stability
  • For the product prior π_μ with same marginals as μ, S*(π_μ) = M(μ) (an explicit coordinatewise upper envelope), and consequently R_max(π_μ) = R_0(π_μ): a misaligned sender cannot increase receiver utility over the prior for independent-bit priors.
  • If μ pointwise dominates (1−η)·π_μ (i.e., μ(x) ≥ (1−η)π_μ(x) for all x), then S*(μ) ≥ (1−η)M(μ) and the receiver bound tightens to R_max(μ) ≤ R_0(μ) + η M(μ) ≤ R_0(μ) + η n, hence ratio ≤ 1 + 2η.
  • There is also a TV-stability result: in a bounded-away-from-zero region, S* is Lipschitz in total variation, yielding a bound on R_max in terms of d_TV(μ, π_μ).
• Correlation can matter
  • The authors construct a 6-bit prior μ_lb and an explicit obedient signaling scheme achieving S = 5 and R = 3.9 (39/10). A dual certificate shows S*(μ_lb) ≤ 5, so among sender-optimal policies the receiver utility is 39/10 while R_0(μ_lb) = 31/10. Thus R_max/R_0 = 39/31 ≈ 1.258 > 5/4, so the universal constant cannot be reduced to 5/4.
• Proof techniques
  • Direct-obedient representation of signals (joint q(x,a)); linear programs (primal for sender) and dual certificates to prove optimality; constructive schemes (OR-scheme, coordinatewise randomized rules) to get lower bounds; inequalities to relate S and R via marginal quantities M(·) and P(·).

Data & Methods

• Nature of evidence: fully theoretical — no empirical data. Results are proved mathematically.
• Main technical ingredients:
  • Formalization of signaling as an obedient direct scheme q(x,a) (joint distribution over states and recommended actions) that enforces Bayesian posterior obedience coordinatewise.
  • Elementary accounting lemmas linking prior marginals, sender value upper envelope M(·), and receiver prior utility R_0(·).
  • Construction of specific signaling schemes:
    • OR-scheme: send the unordered pair {X, Y} with Y∼μ and recommend X∨Y, used to lower-bound S*(μ).
    • Bitwise randomized scheme for product priors achieving the coordinatewise envelope M(·).
    • A tailor-made 6-bit scheme achieving the demonstrated lower-bound instance.
  • LP duality: write sender’s optimization as an LP; produce explicit dual feasible multipliers to certify upper bounds on S*(μ) (used for the 6-bit example).
  • Stability bounds: dual-based Lipschitzness of S* on the set of priors bounded away from zero, and mixture/pointwise domination arguments to extend product-prior results to near-product priors.
• No simulation or data fitting; arguments are constructive and/or certificate-based.

Implications for AI Economics

• Quantified limits on information withholding under misaligned incentives: the paper gives tight, distribution-free guarantees that even a fully informed, single misaligned AI sender cannot inflate the receiver’s correctness (as measured here) by more than a factor of 3/2 relative to the prior benchmark; under independence this inflation is zero.
• Role of prior correlations: correlations in the human’s prior (or effective prior induced by context) are the primary channel by which a misaligned sender can improve receiver outcomes (from the sender’s perspective) and thus alter what information the human receives. Product-like beliefs (independence across components) are robust against sender manipulation; strong dependence can increase the potential manipulation substantially (at least up to ≈1.258 shown).
• Design and policy takeaways
  • Encourage independence or diversify sources of information (competition/multiple senders) to limit the information-hiding power of a single misaligned agent.
  • Monitoring and modeling users’ priors matter: bounds depend on marginals and dependence structure; auditing or limiting correlations in training or contextual signals can be a lever.
  • Commitment and transparency mechanisms that constrain signaling capacity (e.g., mandate public disclosure formats, limit complex correlated reports) can restrict sender-optimal schemes to ones with provably bounded effects.
  • Where worst-case guarantees are required (contracts, procurement, regulation), these theoretical bounds offer computable benchmarks (R_0, M(·), P(·)) for risk assessment.
• Open directions relevant to AI economics
  • Multi-sender/competitive environments: competition can restore more aligned outcomes but equilibrium analysis is subtle; need theory for how many and what diversity of senders suffice to guarantee near-aligned receiver utility.
  • Partial/limited sender information: bounding harms when the sender has noisy/incomplete observation of the world (more realistic for deployed systems).
  • Non-additive receiver utilities and strategic dependence across coordinates: extending to richer decision problems (externalities, complementarities) to see how bounds change.
  • Empirical calibration: measure realistic priors and correlations in domains where AI advice is used to evaluate practical risk levels using the paper’s formulae.

Short summary: this work gives clean, provable upper bounds on how much a single misaligned, fully informed AI can alter the information reaching a receiver in a binary-bit guessing task; independence of coordinates eliminates the harm (no receiver gain), weak dependence limits it, and carefully constructed correlations can increase the effect (but the universal worst-case factor is at most 3/2 and at least ≈1.258). These quantitative results can inform mechanism design, auditing, and institutional responses to misaligned information-providing AI agents.