Artificial Intelligent Disobedience: Rethinking the Agency of Our Artificial Teammates

In shared autonomy, a critical tension arises when an automated assistant must choose between obeying a human's instruction and deliberately overriding it to prevent harm. This safety-critical behavior is known as intelligent disobedience. To formalize this dynamic, this paper introduces the Intelligent Disobedience Game (IDG), a sequential game-theoretic framework based on Stackelberg games that models the interaction between a human leader and an assistive follower operating under asymmetric information. It characterizes optimal strategies for both agents across multi-step scenarios, identifying strategic phenomena such as ``safety traps,'' where the system indefinitely avoids harm but fails to achieve the human's goal. The IDG provides a needed mathematical foundation that enables both the algorithmic development of agents that can learn safe non-compliance and the empirical study of how humans perceive and trust disobedient AI. The paper further translates the IDG into a shared control Multi-Agent Markov Decision Process representation, forming a compact computational testbed for training reinforcement learning agents.

Enterprise AI is transitioning from single-user, reactive tools toward proactive, multi-user 'teammates,' but our empirical understanding of this transition is limited. In this paper, we present an in-situ qualitative study of a persistent, proactive AI agent 'teammate' deployed across multiple teams in a large technology company. Our findings reveal the boundaries of the human-agent workplace are actively in flux, triggering breakdowns and negotiations across: 1) tacit rules of collaborative human workflows, 2) the relational boundaries of this new non-human actor, and 3) the redistribution of trust and human agency. We use these early micro-negotiations as signals to chart a new research, design, and organizational agenda that intentionally preserves human agency in a workplace shared with non-human organizational actors.

Progress in AI is often measured by what a single model can do on its own. Yet teams of AI agents are starting to make breakthroughs and discoveries in science, medicine, mathematics and software engineering. As AI begins to work in teams of agents and people, the ability to collaborate becomes a core part of their intelligence. Research on human teams has measured this ability for decades. Inspired by this, we introduce the Collaborative Intelligence Benchmark, which measures how well an AI agent works as a teammate. It contains 240 tasks across 8 dimensions of teamwork, from refusing an unsafe shortcut to checking the work that a weaker model leaves behind. Each task comes from a real record or an existing benchmark, from aviation accident reports and clinical cases to coding tasks and negotiations, and has a programmatically verifiable outcome. To isolate teamwork from individual capability, models are scored only on tasks that they can solve by themselves when they have full information. We evaluate 18 closed- and open-weight models and find that every model, across sizes and families, has clear weaknesses as a teammate, with the best model scoring only 82.2 out of 100. Frontier models almost always refuse unsafe shortcuts and report misconduct, yet they cave under interpersonal pressure, reaching the best overall deal in only 14% of conflicts, and their pass rate drops from 97% to 81% when they take over a task in which a weaker model has cheated. Crucially, general capability does not guarantee good teamwork, as models with nearly the same capability score differ by up to 11 points as teammates. The benchmark includes 160 public tasks with code and data, along with 80 held-out tasks for evaluation. As AI agents increasingly work alongside other agents and people, the ability to collaborate effectively is becoming a crucial capability to measure and develop.