This is an automated rejection. No LLM generated, heavily assisted/co-written, or otherwise reliant work.
Read full explanation
Title: Does psychological scarcity reduce cooperation, and can a strictly constrained decision-support AI help? (small test proposal)
I’m interested in a simple hypothesis: when people are in a high-scarcity state (stress, fear, sleep loss, financial/emotional pressure), they become more short-term oriented and more likely to choose defensive/hostile moves. My guess is that part of this is “bandwidth”: long-horizon thinking is expensive, so people default to simpler, zero-sum strategies.
Hypothesis: If we intervene only during high-scarcity periods with a tool that organizes options (without commanding or emotionally pushing), we should see reduced short-term orientation and fewer conflicts.
Intervention (hard constraints):
The AI does not issue imperatives, use emotional loading, or create urgency.
It outputs only: options, predicted outcomes, and uncertainty.
No execution authority. The user always makes the final decision.
Verification (2-week A/B):
Daily scarcity rating (0–10).
A simple short-term orientation / delay-discounting question.
Daily logs: conflict episodes and procrastination.
Refutation conditions (safety first): If we observe increased blind obedience/dependence, or conflicts escalate, I consider the intervention dangerous and would withdraw the proposal.
Open issue: how to handle conflicts of interest between users (hard constraints vs external harm costs vs mediation mode).
Note: I wrote the original in Japanese myself. The English text is a DeepL translation that I lightly edited; I take responsibility for the content. (Japanese original below.)
Title: Does psychological scarcity reduce cooperation, and can a strictly constrained decision-support AI help? (small test proposal)
I’m interested in a simple hypothesis: when people are in a high-scarcity state (stress, fear, sleep loss, financial/emotional pressure), they become more short-term oriented and more likely to choose defensive/hostile moves. My guess is that part of this is “bandwidth”: long-horizon thinking is expensive, so people default to simpler, zero-sum strategies.
Hypothesis: If we intervene only during high-scarcity periods with a tool that organizes options (without commanding or emotionally pushing), we should see reduced short-term orientation and fewer conflicts.
Intervention (hard constraints):
The AI does not issue imperatives, use emotional loading, or create urgency.
It outputs only: options, predicted outcomes, and uncertainty.
No execution authority. The user always makes the final decision.
Verification (2-week A/B):
Daily scarcity rating (0–10).
A simple short-term orientation / delay-discounting question.
Daily logs: conflict episodes and procrastination.
Refutation conditions (safety first): If we observe increased blind obedience/dependence, or conflicts escalate, I consider the intervention dangerous and would withdraw the proposal.
Open issue: how to handle conflicts of interest between users (hard constraints vs external harm costs vs mediation mode).
Note: I wrote the original in Japanese myself. The English text is a DeepL translation that I lightly edited; I take responsibility for the content. (Japanese original below.)
心理的欠乏が協調を壊すなら、意思決定支援AIで改善できるか（小さな検証案）
観察：欠乏が強い時、人は短期化して攻撃/防衛に寄る（私の実感 + 既知の現象としての仮説）
仮説：欠乏が高いタイミングに限って「選択肢整理」介入をすると、短期志向と衝突が減る
介入仕様：AIは命令しない・煽らない・選択肢と結果予測のみ（実行権なし）
検証：2週間A/B、欠乏0–10、短期志向テスト、衝突/先延ばしログ
反証条件：盲従や依存が増える/衝突が増えるなら危険として撤回
オープン問題：利害衝突の扱い（ハード制約/外部不利益コスト/調停モード）