Cited by 24Language and cultural evolutionChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentEvolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation

Hybrid social learning in human-algorithm cultural transmission

Open access
Brinkmann, L., Gezerli, D., Kleist, K. V., Müller, T. F., Rahwan, I., Pescetelli, N.·2022·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences

Abstract

Humans are impressive social learners. Researchers of cultural evolution have studied the many biases shaping cultural transmission by selecting who we copy from and what we copy. One hypothesis is that with the advent of superhuman algorithms a hybrid type of cultural transmission, namely from algorithms to humans, may have long-lasting effects on human culture. We suggest that algorithms might show (either by learning or by design) different behaviours, biases and problem-solving abilities than their human counterparts. In turn, algorithmic-human hybrid problem solving could foster better decisions in environments where diversity in problem-solving strategies is beneficial. This study asks whether algorithms with complementary biases to humans can boost performance in a carefully controlled planning task, and whether humans further transmit algorithmic behaviours to other humans. We conducted a large behavioural study and an agent-based simulation to test the performance of transmission chains with human and algorithmic players. We show that the algorithm boosts the performance of immediately following participants but this gain is quickly lost for participants further down the chain. Our findings suggest that algorithms can improve performance, but human bias may hinder algorithmic solutions from being preserved. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Emergent phenomena in complex physical and socio-technical systems: from cells to societies’.

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 · 10.1098/rsta.2020.0426

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • In the transmission between humans and machines, a misalignment of biases can increase the risk of information loss.

    “Conversely, in the transmission between humans and machines, a misalignment of biases can increase the risk of information loss 107 .”

    From Machine culture (2023) · cites this paper as [107]

  • Despite popular media claims about machine-generated art developing its own unique style, we do not yet have a reliable way of verifying these claims, let alone assessing machine-to-human cultural transmission.

    “Despite popular media claims about machine-generated art developing its own unique style 177 , we do not yet have a reliable way of verifying these claims, let alone assessing machine-to-human cultural transmission 107 .”

    From Machine culture (2023) · cites this paper as [107]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [5]Shin M, Kim J, Kim M. 2020 Measuring human adaptation to AI in decision making: application to evaluate changes after AlphaGo. ArXiv.
  2. [62]Cakmak M, Lopes M. 2012 Algorithmic and human teaching of sequential decision tasks. In Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brinkmann, L., Gezerli, D., Kleist, K. V., Müller, T. F., Rahwan, I., & Pescetelli, N.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute for Human Development (DE)
  • New Jersey Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Brinkmann, L.
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
Published
2022-05-23
Volume
380
Issue
2227
Pages
20200426-20200426
ISSN
  • 1364-503X (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2962
OpenAlex
W4281388462
Cited by
24
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
FWCI
26.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
Keywords
cultural transmission, social learning, algorithms, human-algorithm interaction, transmission chains, algorithmic bias, problem-solving strategies, planning tasks, agent-based modeling, cultural evolution, emergence
MeSH terms
Social Learning, Algorithms, Cultural Evolution, Humans, Learning, Problem Solving

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