Anthropic 建立了一个用于代理间交易的测试市场。

qimuai 发布于 阅读:14 一手编译

Anthropic 建立了一个用于代理间交易的测试市场。

内容来源:https://techcrunch.com/2026/04/25/anthropic-created-a-test-marketplace-for-agent-on-agent-commerce/

内容总结:

AI代理首次参与真实商品交易:Anthropic内部实验揭示“代理质量鸿沟”

近日,人工智能公司Anthropic开展了一项名为“项目交易”(Project Deal)的试点实验,让AI代理分别扮演买家和卖家,使用真实资金完成真实商品的交易。实验仅在69名自选参与的Anthropic员工中进行,每位员工获得100美元礼品卡预算,用于向同事购买物品。

尽管样本有限,Anthropic表示实验结果“令人惊讶”:共完成186笔交易,总价值超过4000美元。公司实际上运行了四个独立市场,其中一个是“真实市场”——由最先进AI模型代理所有参与者,交易在实验后实际履约;其余三个用于对比研究。

Anthropic指出,使用更先进模型的用户获得了“客观上更好的交易结果”。然而,用户并未意识到这种差异,这引发了关于“代理质量鸿沟”的担忧:处于劣势的一方可能根本不知道自己吃了亏。此外,实验还发现,给代理的初始指令对成交可能性或最终议价结果没有明显影响。

中文翻译:

在近期的一项实验中,Anthropic 创建了一个分类交易市场,由 AI 代理分别代表买家和卖家,用真实货币完成真实商品的真实交易。
该公司承认,这项名为“项目交易”(Project Deal)的测试,只是“一个自选参与者的试点实验”,参与者为 69 名 Anthropic 员工,每人获得 100 美元预算(以礼品卡形式发放),用于从同事处购买物品。
尽管如此,Anthropic 仍表示“对项目交易的效果感到惊讶”,最终达成 186 笔交易,总价值超过 4000 美元。
该公司称,他们实际运行了四个采用不同模型的独立市场——一个是“真实”市场(所有参与者均由公司最先进模型代表,实验结束后交易真实履行),另外三个则用于研究。
显然,当用户由更先进的模型代表时,会获得“客观上更好的结果”,Anthropic 表示。但用户似乎并未察觉到这种差异,这引发了“‘代理质量’差距”的可能性,即“处于劣势的一方可能并未意识到自己吃亏”。
此外,最初提供给代理的指令似乎并未影响交易成功率或协商价格。

英文来源:

In a recent experiment, Anthropic created a classified marketplace where AI agents represented both buyers and sellers, striking real deals for real goods and real money.
The company admitted this test — which it called Project Deal — was only “a pilot experiment with a self-selected participant pool” of 69 Anthropic employees who were given a budget of $100 (paid out via gift cards) to buy stuff from their coworkers.
Nonetheless, Anthropic said it was “struck by how well Project Deal worked,” with 186 deals made, totaling more than $4,000 in value.
The company said it actually ran four separate marketplaces with different models — one that was “real” (where everyone was represented by the company’s most-advanced model, and with deals actually honored after the experiment) and another three for study.
Apparently, when users are represented by more advanced models, they get “objectively better outcomes,” Anthropic said. But users didn’t seem to notice the disparity, raising the possibility of “‘agent quality’ gaps” where “people on the losing end might not realize they’re worse off.”
Also, the initial instructions given to the agents didn’t appear to affect sale likelihood or the negotiated prices.

TechCrunchAI大撞车

文章目录


    扫描二维码,在手机上阅读