Cited by 1,364Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsCybernetics and Technology in Society

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 115 of the 115 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Machine behaviour

Open access

Abstract

Machines powered by artificial intelligence increasingly mediate our social, cultural, economic and political interactions. Understanding the behaviour of artificial intelligence systems is essential to our ability to control their actions, reap their benefits and minimize their harms. Here we argue that this necessitates a broad scientific research agenda to study machine behaviour that incorporates and expands upon the discipline of computer science and includes insights from across the sciences. We first outline a set of questions that are fundamental to this emerging field and then explore the technical, legal and institutional constraints on the study of machine behaviour.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41586-019-1138-y

Cites

115 of 115 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Such endogenous coordination failures blur the line between attack and accident.

    “Such endogenous coordination failures blur the line between attack and accident (Leibo et al., 2017;Rahwan et al., 2019), reinforcing that defenses must account for both malicious swarms and emergent collective behaviors.”

    From Open Challenges in Multi-Agent Security: Towards Secure Systems of Interacting AI Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Rahwan et al., 2019

    The Collective machine behaviour section (page unavailable) describes flash crashes as unintended consequences of interacting algorithms, supporting the point that failures can emerge from machine interactions. The Function section discusses adversarial attacks, but neither passage says that emergent failures blur the distinction between attack and accident. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Augmentation is a coevolutionary process during which humans learn from machines and machines learn from humans.

    “Augmentation is therefore a coevolutionary process during which humans learn from machines and machines learn from humans (Amershi, Cakmak, Knox, & Kulesza, 2014;Rahwan et al., 2019).”

    From Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox (2021) · cites this paper as Rahwan et al., 2019

    The Collective machine behaviour section says machines may learn from humans and humans may learn from machines, with feedback affecting both. Human-machine co-behaviour also discusses reciprocal influence, but the paper does not identify augmentation specifically as a coevolutionary process; it describes mutual learning as a possibility. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Only studies examining hybrid organizational systems comprising both managers and machines can examine the feedback loops between human influence on machine behavior and machine influence on human behavior, which cause emergent behaviors that are otherwise impossible to predict.

    “Only such studies can examine the feedback loops between human influence on machine behavior and machine influence on human behavior, which cause the emergent behaviors that are otherwise impossible to predict (Rahwan et al., 2019).”

    From Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox (2021) · cites this paper as Rahwan et al., 2019

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Computer scientists are generally not trained social or behavioral scientists.

    “Computer scientists may be expert technologists, but they are generally not trained social or behavioral scientists (Rahwan et al., 2019).”

    From Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox (2021) · cites this paper as Rahwan et al., 2019

  • These differences lead to entirely new machine behaviors.

    “These differences lead to entirely new machine behaviors (Rahwan et al., 2019).”

    From Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox (2021) · cites this paper as Rahwan et al., 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Simon, H. A. The Sciences of the Artificial (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1969). Simon asks whether there can be a science of the ‘artificial’ that produces knowledge about artificial objects and phenomena.
  2. Kleinberg, J., Lakkaraju, H., Leskovec, J., Ludwig, J. & Mullainathan, S. Human decisions and machine predictions. Q. J. Econ. 133, 237–293 (2018).
  3. Amodei, D. et al. Concrete problems in AI safety. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.06565 (2016). · arXiv
  4. Bessi, A. & Ferrara, E. Social bots distort the 2016 U.S. Presidential election online discussion. First Monday 21, 11 (2016).
  5. Tufekci, Z. Engineering the public: big data, surveillance and computational politics. First Monday 19, 7 (2014).
  6. Cartlidge, J., Szostek, C., De Luca, M. & Cliff, D. Too fast too furious—faster financial-market trading agents can give less efficient markets. In Proc. 4th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence 126–135 (2012).
  7. Doshi-Velez, F. & Kim, B. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.08608 (2017). · arXiv
  8. Kleinberg, J., Mullainathan, S. & Raghavan, M. Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05807 (2016). · arXiv
  9. Buolamwini, J. & Gebru, T. Gender shades: intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Proc. 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (eds Friedler, S. A. & Wilson, C.) 81, 77–91 (PMLR, 2018).
  10. Bolukbasi, T., Chang, K.-W., Zou, J. Y., Saligrama, V. & Kalai, A. T. Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker? Debiasing word embeddings. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 4349–4357 (2016).
  11. Sweeney, L. Discrimination in online ad delivery. Queueing Syst. 11, 10 (2013).
  12. Ensign, D., Friedler, S. A., Neville, S., Scheidegger, C. & Venkatasubramanian, S. Runaway feedback loops in predictive policing. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.09847 (2017). · arXiv
  13. Chouldechova, A., Benavides-Prado, D., Fialko, O. & Vaithianathan, R. A case study of algorithm-assisted decision making in child maltreatment hotline screening decisions. In Proc. 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (eds Friedler, S. A. & Wilson, C.) 81, 134–148 (PMLR, 2018).
  14. Zhou, Z., Zhang, W. & Wang, J. Inception score, label smoothing, gradient vanishing and -log(D(x)) alternative. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.01729 (2017). · arXiv
  15. Tinbergen, N. On aims and methods of ethology. Ethology 20, 410–433 (1963).
  16. Das, R., Hanson, J. E., Kephart, J. O. & Tesauro, G. Agent–human interactions in the continuous double auction. In Proc. 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 1169–1178 (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2001).
  17. Smilkov, D., Thorat, N., Kim, B., Viégas, F. & Wattenberg, M. SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noise. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03825 (2017). · arXiv
  18. Edwards, H. & Storkey, A. Censoring representations with an adversary. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.05897 (2015). · arXiv
  19. Zemel, R., Wu, Y., Swersky, K., Pitassi, T. & Dwork, C. learning fair representations. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning 325–333 (2013).
  20. Leibo, J. Z. et al. Psychlab: a psychology laboratory for deep reinforcement learning agents. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.08116 (2018). In this study, the authors use behavioural tools from the life sciences in the study of machine behaviours. · arXiv
  21. Lazaridou, A., Peysakhovich, A. & Baroni, M. Multi-agent cooperation and the emergence of (natural) language. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.07182 (2016). · arXiv
  22. Kamar, E., Hacker, S. & Horvitz, E. Combining human and machine intelligence in large-scale crowdsourcing. in Proc. 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems 467–474 (International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2012).
  23. Wang, D., Khosla, A., Gargeya, R., Irshad, H. & Beck, A. H. Deep learning for identifying metastatic breast cancer. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.05718 (2016). · arXiv
  24. Pentland, A. Social Physics: How Social Networks Can Make Us Smarter (Penguin, 2015).
  25. Meyer, M. N. Two cheers for corporate experimentation: The A/B illusion and the virtues of data-driven innovation. Colorado Technol. Law J. 13, 273 (2015).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Rahwan, I., Cebrian, M., Obradovich, N., Bongard, J., Bonnefon, J.-F., Breazeal, C., Crandall, J. W., Christakis, N. A., Couzin, I. D., Jackson, M. O., Jennings, N. R., Kamar, E., Kloumann, I. M., Larochelle, H., Lazer, D., McElreath, R., Mislove, A., Parkes, D. C., Pentland, A. ‘., Roberts, M. E., Shariff, A., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Wellman, M.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute for Human Development (DE)
  • MIT Media Lab (US)
  • University of Vermont (US)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Brigham Young University (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
  • Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CA)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • Meta (United States) (US)
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (DE)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Rahwan, Iyad
Venue
Nature
Published
2019-04
Volume
568
Issue
7753
Pages
477-486
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W4211017739
Cited by
1,364
References
115
Citations by year
2026: 330 · 2025: 258 · 2024: 187 · 2023: 157 · 2022: 142 · 2021: 143 · 2020: 113 · 2019: 31
FWCI
29.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Toulouse 1 Capitole Publications (Université Toulouse I Capitole) (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (N00014-14-1-0635, 1355061, 1447634, N00014-09-1-1074, 1231216, 1344227)
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  • Office of the Director of National Intelligence (2017-17061500006)
  • Future of Life Institute
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (422037984)
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-17-EURE-0010, 2017-)
  • Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (W911NG-11-1-0385, N00014-09-1-1074, IOS-1355061, N00014-14-1-0635)
  • Companhia Brasileira de Metalurgia e Mineração (CCF-1231216)
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (2017-17061500006)
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014-09-1-1074, N00014-14-1 0635, IOS-1355061, W911NG-11-1-0385, N00014)
  • NIH Office of the Director
  • Army Research Office (W911NF-14-1-0431, W911NF-16-1-0304, N00014-14-1-0635, W911NG-11-1- 0385, IOS-1355061, W911NF-16-1-, W911NF, N00014-09-1-1074)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
Keywords
artificial intelligence, artificial intelligence systems, AI regulation, interdisciplinary research agenda, institutional constraints, societal impact of AI
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Motivation, Robotics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review