Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 83Ethics and Social Impacts of AIMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationCybernetics and Technology in Society

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

A new sociology of humans and machines

Open access
Tsvetkova, Milena, Yasseri, Taha, Pescetelli, Niccolo, Werner, Tobias·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2402.14410arXiv 2402.14410
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

From fake social media accounts and generative artificial intelligence chatbots to trading algorithms and self-driving vehicles, robots, bots and algorithms are proliferating and permeating our communication channels, social interactions, economic transactions and transportation arteries. Networks of multiple interdependent and interacting humans and intelligent machines constitute complex social systems for which the collective outcomes cannot be deduced from either human or machine behaviour alone. Under this paradigm, we review recent research and identify general dynamics and patterns in situations of competition, coordination, cooperation, contagion and collective decision-making, with context-rich examples from high-frequency trading markets, a social media platform, an open collaboration community and a discussion forum. To ensure more robust and resilient human-machine communities, we require a new sociology of humans and machines. Researchers should study these communities using complex system methods; engineers should explicitly design artificial intelligence for human-machine and machine-machine interactions; and regulators should govern the ecological diversity and social co-development of humans and machines.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2402.14410

Cites

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?

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

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 123

  1. Emery, F. Characteristics of socio-technical systems. In Characteristics of Socio-Technical Systems, 157-186 (Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 2016).
  2. Latour, B. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory (Oxford Univ. Press, 2007).
  3. Sheth, A., Anantharam, P. & Henson, C. Physical-cyber-social computing: An early 21st century approach. IEEE Intel. Syst. 28, 78-82 (2013).
  4. Wang, F.-Y. The emergence of intelligent enterprises: From CPS to CPSS. IEEE Intel. Syst. 25, 85-88 (2010).
  5. Buregio, V., Meira, S. & Rosa, N. Social machines: A unified paradigm to describe social web-oriented systems. In Proc. 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web, 885-890 (ACM, 2013).
  6. Shadbolt, N. R. et al. Towards a classification framework for social machines. In Proc. 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web, 905-912 (ACM, 2013).
  7. Kurosu, M. (ed.) Human-Computer Interaction. Theory, Design, Development and Practice, 9731, 11-22 (Springer International Publishing, 2016).
  8. Tsvetkova, M. et al. Understanding human-machine networks: A cross-disciplinary survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 50 (2017).
  9. Bianconi, G. et al. Complex systems in the spotlight: Next steps after the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics. J. Phys. Complex. 4, 010201 (2023).
  10. Pedreschi, D. et al. Social AI and the challenges of the human-AI ecosystem. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.13723 (2023). · DOI
  11. Paré, G. & Kitsiou, S. Chapter 9: Methods for literature reviews. In Lau, F. & Kuziemsky, C. (eds.) Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach, 157-178 (Univ. of Victoria, 2017).
  12. Whittemore, R. & Knafl, K. The integrative review: Updated methodology. J. Adv. Nurs. 52, 546-553 (2005).
  13. Tsvetkova, M., García-Gavilanes, R., Floridi, L. & Yasseri, T. Even good bots fight: The case of Wikipedia. PLoS ONE 12, e0171774 (2017).
  14. Hilbert, M. & Darmon, D. How complexity and uncertainty grew with algorithmic trading. Entropy 22, E499 (2020).
  15. Koren, Y., Rendle, S. & Bell, R. Advances in collaborative filtering. In Ricci, F., Rokach, L. & Shapira, B. (eds.) Recommender Systems Handbook, 91-142 (Springer US, 2022).
  16. Ferrara, E., Varol, O., Davis, C., Menczer, F. & Flammini, A. The rise of social bots. Commun. ACM 59, 96-104 (2016).
  17. Takko, T., Bhattacharya, K., Monsivais, D. & Kaski, K. Human-agent coordination in a group formation game. Sci. Rep. 11, 10744 (2021).
  18. Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow (Penguin, 2012).
  19. Kordzadeh, N. & Ghasemaghaei, M. Algorithmic bias: Review, synthesis, and future research directions. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 31, 388-409 (2022).
  20. Russell, S. & Norvig, P. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (Pearson India Education Services Private Limited, 2022).
  21. Fogg, BJ. & Nass, C. How users reciprocate to computers: An experiment that demonstrates behavior change. In CHI '97 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 331-332 (ACM, 1997).
  22. Nass, C., Steuer, J. & Tauber, E. R. Computers are social actors. In Proc. SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 72-78 (1994).
  23. Siegel, M., Breazeal, C. & Norton, M. I. Persuasive robotics: The influence of robot gender on human behavior. In 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2563-2568 (2009).
  24. Slater, M. et al. A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PLOS ONE 1, e39 (2006).
  25. Krach, S. et al. Can machines think? Interaction and perspective taking with robots inves- tigated via fMRI. PLOS ONE 3, e2597 (2008).
  26. Zhang, J., Conway, J. & Hidalgo, C. A. Why do people judge humans dif- ferently from machines? The role of agency and experience. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.10081 (2022). · DOI
  27. Chugunova, M. & Sele, D. We and It: An interdisciplinary review of the experimental evidence on how humans interact with machines. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 99, 101897 (2022).
  28. Hidalgo, C. A., Orghian, D., Canals, J. A., Almeida, F. D. & Martin, N. How Humans Judge Machines (MIT Press, 2021).
  29. Schniter, E., Shields, T. W. & Sznycer, D. Trust in humans and robots: Economically similar but emotionally different. J. Econ. Psychol. 78, 102253 (2020).
  30. Candrian, C. & Scherer, A. Rise of the machines: Delegating decisions to autonomous AI. Comput. Hum. Behav. 134, 107308 (2022).
  31. Erlei, A., Das, R., Meub, L., Anand, A. & Gadiraju, U. For what it's worth: Humans overwrite their economic self-interest to avoid bargaining with AI systems. In Proc. 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-18 (ACM, 2022).
  32. Karpus, J., Krüger, A., Verba, J. T., Bahrami, B. & Deroy, O. Algorithm exploitation: Humans are keen to exploit benevolent AI. iScience 24, 102679 (2021).
  33. March, C. Strategic interactions between humans and artificial intelligence: Lessons from experiments with computer players. J. Econ. Psychol. 87, 102426 (2021).
  34. Oliveira, R., Arriaga, P., Santos, F. P., Mascarenhas, S. & Paiva, A. Towards prosocial design: A scoping review of the use of robots and virtual agents to trigger prosocial behaviour. Comput. Hum. Behav. 114, 106547 (2021).
  35. Hayes, B., Ullman, D., Alexander, E., Bank, C. & Scassellati, B. People help robots who help others, not robots who help themselves. In The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 255-260 (2014).
  36. Sebo, S., Stoll, B., Scassellati, B. & Jung, M. F. Robots in groups and teams: A literature review. P. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, 176:1-176:36 (2020).
  37. Salomons, N., van der Linden, M., Sebo, S. S. & Scassellati, B. Humans conform to robots: Disambiguating trust, truth, and conformity. In 2018 13th ACM/IEEE International Con- ference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 187-195 (2018).
  38. Salomons, N., Sebo, S. S., Qin, M. & Scassellati, B. A minority of one against a majority of robots: Robots cause normative and informational conformity. ACM T. Hum.-Robot Interact. 10, 1-22 (2021).
  39. Leib, M., Köbis, N. C., Rilke, R. M., Hagens, M. & Irlenbusch, B. The corruptive force of AI-generated advice. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2102.07536 (2021). · DOI
  40. Krügel, S., Ostermaier, A. & Uhl, M. ChatGPT's inconsistent moral advice influences users' judgment. Sci. Rep. 13, 4569 (2023).
  41. Bogert, E., Schecter, A. & Watson, R. T. Humans rely more on algorithms than social influence as a task becomes more difficult. Sci. Rep. 11, 8028 (2021).
  42. Burton, J. W., Stein, M.-K. & Jensen, T. B. A systematic review of algorithm aversion in augmented decision making. J. Behav. Decis. Making 33, 220-239 (2020).
  43. Mahmud, H., Islam, A. K. M. N., Ahmed, S. I. & Smolander, K. What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 175, 121390 (2022).
  44. Miller, J. H. & Page, S. Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life (Princeton Univ. Press, 2009).
  45. Grossklags, J. & Schmidt, C. Software agents and market (in) efficiency: A human trader experiment. IEEE T. Syst. Man. Cyb. C 36, 56-67 (2006).
  46. Cartlidge, J., De Luca, M., Szostek, C. & Cliff, D. Too fast too furious: Faster financial- market trading agents can give less efficient markets. Proc. Fourth International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence 2, 126-135 (2012).
  47. Krafft, P. M., Macy, M. & Pentland, A. S. Bots as virtual confederates: Design and ethics. In Proc. 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Com- puting, 183-190 (ACM, 2017).
  48. Backus, M., Blake, T., Masterov, D. V. & Tadelis, S. Is sniping a problem for online auction markets? In Proc. 24th International Conference on World Wide Web, 88-96 (ACM, 2015).
  49. Aparicio, D. & Misra, K. Artificial intelligence and pricing, vol. 20 (Emerald Publishing Limited, 2023).
  50. Chen, L., Mislove, A. & Wilson, C. An empirical analysis of algorithmic pricing on Amazon marketplace. In Proc. 25th international conference on World Wide Web, 1339-1349 (ACM, 2016).
  51. Garcia, D., Tolvanen, J. & Wagner, A. K. Strategic responses to algo- rithmic recommendations: Evidence from hotel pricing. Preprint at SSRN http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4676767 (2023). · DOI
  52. Hunold, M. & Werner, T. Algorithmic price recommendations and collusion: Experimental evidence. Preprint at SSRN http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4557050 (2023). · DOI
  53. Werner, T. Algorithmic and human collusion. Preprint at SSRN http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3960738 (2022). · DOI
  54. Normann, H.-T. & Sternberg, M. Human-algorithm interaction: Algorithmic pricing in hybrid laboratory markets. Eur. Econ. Rev. 152, 104347 (2023).
  55. Musolff, L. Algorithmic pricing facilitates tacit collusion: Evidence from e-commerce. In Proc. 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, 32-33 (2022).
  56. Wieting, M. & Sapi, G. Algorithms in the marketplace: An empirical analysis of automated pricing in e-commerce. Preprint at SSRN http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3945137 (2021). · DOI
  57. O'Connor, J. & Wilson, N. E. Reduced demand uncertainty and the sustainability of collusion: How AI could affect competition. Inf. Econ. Policy 54, 100882 (2021).
  58. Martin, S. & Rasch, A. Demand forecasting, signal precision, and collusion with hidden actions. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 92, 103036 (2024).
  59. Brown, Z. Y. & MacKay, A. Competition in pricing algorithms. Preprint at National Bureau of Economic Research https://doi.org/10.3386/w28860 (2021). · DOI
  60. Leisten, M. Algorithmic competition, with humans. Preprint at SSRN https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4733318 (2024).
  61. Ullmann-Margalit, E. The Emergence of Norms (Oxford Univ. Press, 2015).
  62. Santos, F. P., Pacheco, J. M., Paiva, A. & Santos, F. C. Evolution of collective fairness in hybrid populations of humans and agents. P. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intel. 33, 6146-6153 (2019).
  63. Shen, C., He, Z., Shi, L., Wang, Z. & Tanimoto, J. Simple bots breed social punishment in humans. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2211.13943 (2022). · DOI
  64. Suri, S. & Watts, D. J. Cooperation and contagion in web-based, networked public goods experiments. PLOS ONE 6, e16836 (2011).
  65. Fernández Domingos, E. et al. Delegation to artificial agents fosters prosocial behaviors in the collective risk dilemma. Sci. Rep. 12, 8492 (2022).
  66. Shirado, H. & Christakis, N. A. Network engineering using autonomous agents increases cooperation in human groups. iScience 23, 101438 (2020).
  67. Centola, D. How Behavior Spreads: The Science of Complex Contagions (Princeton Univ. Press, 2018).
  68. Leskovec, J., Adamic, L. A. & Huberman, B. A. The dynamics of viral marketing. ACM T. Web 1, 5-es (2007).
  69. Keijzer, M. A. & Mäs, M. The strength of weak bots. Online Soc. Net. Media 21, 100106 (2021).
  70. Strohkorb Sebo, S., Traeger, M., Jung, M. & Scassellati, B. The ripple effects of vulnerability: The effects of a robot's vulnerable behavior on trust in human-robot teams. In Proc. 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 178-186 (ACM, 2018).
  71. Zhang, A. W., Lin, T.-H., Zhao, X. & Sebo, S. Ice-breaking technology: Robots and comput- ers can foster meaningful connections between strangers through in-person conversations. In Proc. 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-14 (ACM, 2023).
  72. Bang, D. & Frith, C. D. Making better decisions in groups. Roy. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 170193 (2017).
  73. Page, S. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies (Princeton Univ. Press, 2008).
  74. Choi, S., Kang, H., Kim, N. & Kim, J. How does AI improve human decision-making? Evidence from the AI-powered Go program. Preprint at SSRN http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3893835 (2023). · DOI · Paper page
  75. Pescetelli, N., Reichert, P. & Rutherford, A. A variational-autoencoder approach to solve the hidden profile task in hybrid human-machine teams. PLOS ONE 17, e0272168 (2022).
  76. Wiethof, C. & Bittner, E. Hybrid intelligence-combining the human in the loop with the com- puter in the loop: A systematic literature review. In Forty-Second International Conference on Information Systems, Austin, 1-17 (2021).
  77. Bowyer, A., Maidel, V., Lintott, C., Swanson, A. & Miller, G. This image intentionally left blank: Mundane images increase citizen science participation. In 2015 Conference on Human Computation & Crowdsourcing, vol. 460 (2015).
  78. Ibrahim, K., Khodursky, S. & Yasseri, T. Gender imbalance and spatiotemporal patterns of contributions to citizen science projects: The case of Zooniverse. Front. Phys. 9, 650720 (2021).
  79. Cui, H. & Yasseri, T. AI-enhanced collective intelligence. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.10433 (2024). · DOI
  80. Jarrow, R. A. & Protter, P. A dysfunctional role of high frequency trading in electronic markets. Int. J. Theor. Appl. Finan. 15, 1250022 (2012).
  81. Johnson, N. et al. Abrupt rise of new machine ecology beyond human response time. Sci. Rep. 3, 2627 (2013).
  82. Beskow, D. M. & Carley, K. M. Bot conversations are different: Leveraging network metrics for bot detection in Twitter. In 2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), 825-832 (2018).
  83. Cresci, S. A decade of social bot detection. Commun. ACM 63, 72-83 (2020).
  84. Davis, C. A., Varol, O., Ferrara, E., Flammini, A. & Menczer, F. BotOrNot: A system to evaluate social bots. In Proc. 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web, 273-274 (ACM, 2016).
  85. Orabi, M., Mouheb, D., Al Aghbari, Z. & Kamel, I. Detection of bots in social media: A systematic review. Inf. Process. Manag. 57, 102250 (2020).
  86. Varol, O., Ferrara, E., Davis, C., Menczer, F. & Flammini, A. Online human-bot interactions: Detection, estimation, and characterization. Proc. International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 11, 280-289 (2017).
  87. Abokhodair, N., Yoo, D. & McDonald, D. W. Dissecting a social botnet: Growth, content and influence in Twitter. In Proc. 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 839-851 (ACM, 2015).
  88. Chu, Z., Gianvecchio, S., Wang, H. & Jajodia, S. Who is tweeting on Twitter: Human, bot, or cyborg? In Proc. 26th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, 21-30 (ACM, 2010).
  89. Chu, Z., Gianvecchio, S., Wang, H. & Jajodia, S. Detecting automation of Twitter accounts: Are you a human, bot, or cyborg? IEEE T. Depend. Secure Comput. 9, 811-824 (2012).
  90. Forelle, M., Howard, P., Monroy-Hernández, A. & Savage, S. Political bots and the manipulation of public opinion in Venezuela. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1507.07109 (2015). · DOI
  91. Howard, P. N. & Kollanyi, B. Bots, #strongerIn, and #brexit: Com- putational propaganda during the UK-EU referendum. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1606.06356 (2016). · DOI
  92. Shao, C. et al. The spread of low-credibility content by social bots. Nat. Commun. 9, 4787 (2018).
  93. Suárez-Serrato, P., Roberts, M. E., Davis, C. & Menczer, F. On the influence of social bots in online protests. In Spiro, E. & Ahn, Y.-Y. (eds.) Social Informatics, 269-278 (Springer International Publishing, 2016).
  94. Yan, H. Y., Yang, K.-C., Shanahan, J. & Menczer, F. Exposure to social bots amplifies perceptual biases and regulation propensity. Sci. Rep. 13, 20707 (2023).
  95. Himelein-Wachowiak, M. et al. Bots and misinformation spread on social media: Implications for COVID-19. J. Med. Internet Res. 23, e26933 (2021).
  96. Yang, K.-C., Torres-Lugo, C. & Menczer, F. Prevalence of low-credibility information on Twitter during the COVID-19 outbreak. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.36190/2020.16 (2020). · DOI
  97. Stella, M., Cristoforetti, M. & Domenico, M. D. Influence of augmented humans in online interactions during voting events. PLOS ONE 14, e0214210 (2019).
  98. Gorodnichenko, Y., Pham, T. & Talavera, O. Social media, sentiment and public opinions: Evidence from #Brexit and #USElection. Eur. Econ. Rev. 136, 103772 (2021).
  99. Zheng, L. N., Albano, C. M., Vora, N. M., Mai, F. & Nickerson, J. V. The roles bots play in Wikipedia. P. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, 215:1-215:20 (2019).
  100. Geiger, R. S. The lives of bots. In Lovink, G. & Tkacz, N. (eds.) Critical Point of View: A Wikipedia Reader, 78-93 (Institute of Network Cultures, 2011).
  101. Steiner, T. Bots vs. Wikipedians, anons vs. logged-ins (redux): A global study of edit activity on Wikipedia and Wikidata. In Proceedings of The International Symposium on Open Collaboration, 1-7 (ACM, 2014).
  102. Geiger, R. S. & Halfaker, A. Operationalizing conflict and cooperation between automated software agents in Wikipedia: A replication and expansion of 'Even Good Bots Fight'. P. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 1, 49:1-49:33 (2017).
  103. Geiger, R. S. & Halfaker, A. When the levee breaks: Without bots, what happens to Wikipedia's quality control processes? In Proc. 9th International Symposium on Open Col- laboration, 1-6 (ACM, 2013).
  104. Massanari, A. L. Contested play: The culture and politics of Reddit bots. In Socialbots and Their Friends (Routledge, 2016).
  105. Hurtado, S., Ray, P. & Marculescu, R. Bot detection in Reddit political discussion. In Proc. Fourth International Workshop on Social Sensing, 30-35 (ACM, 2019).
  106. Jhaver, S., Birman, I., Gilbert, E. & Bruckman, A. Human-machine collaboration for content regulation: The case of Reddit automoderator. ACM T. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 26, 31:1- 31:35 (2019).
  107. Ma, M.-C. & Lalor, J. P. An empirical analysis of human-bot interaction on Reddit. In Proc. Sixth Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text (W-NUT 2020), 101-106 (ACL, 2020).
  108. Yang, K.-C. & Menczer, F. Anatomy of an AI-powered malicious social botnet. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.16336 (2023). · DOI
  109. Yang, K.-C., Singh, D. & Menczer, F. Characteristics and prevalence of fake social media profiles with AI-generated faces. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.02627 (2024). · DOI
  110. Ray, P. P. ChatGPT: A comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope. Internet Things Cyb.-Phys. Syst. 3, 121-154 (2023).
  111. Aiello, L. M., Deplano, M., Schifanella, R. & Ruffo, G. People are strange when you're a stranger: Impact and influence of bots on social networks. Proc. International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 6, 10-17 (2012).
  112. Freitas, C., Benevenuto, F., Ghosh, S. & Veloso, A. Reverse engineering socialbot infiltration strategies in Twitter. In Proc. 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2015, 25-32 (ACM, 2015).
  113. Savage, S., Monroy-Hernandez, A. & Höllerer, T. Botivist: Calling volunteers to action using online bots. In Proc. 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 813-822 (ACM, 2016).
  114. Krafft, P. M., Della Penna, N. & Pentland, A. S. An experimental study of cryptocurrency market dynamics. In Proc. 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-13 (ACM, 2018).
  115. Salganik, M. J. Bit by Bit: Social Research in the Digital Age (Princeton Univ. Press, 2019).
  116. Paiva, A., Mascarenhas, S., Petisca, S., Correia, F. & Alves-Oliveira, P. Towards more humane machines: Creating emotional social robots. In New interdisciplinary landscapes in morality and emotion, 125-139 (Routledge, 2018).
  117. Wagman, K. B. & Parks, L. Beyond the command: Feminist STS research and critical issues for the design of social machines. P. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, 1-20 (2021).
  118. Asimov, I. I, Robot, vol. 1 (Spectra, [1950] 2004).
  119. Graham, T. & Ackland, R. Do socialbots dream of popping the filter bubble? The role of socialbots in promoting deliberative democracy in social media. In Gehl, R. W. & Bakardjieva, M. (eds.) Socialbots and Their Friends: Digital Media and the Automation of Sociality, 187- 206 (Routledge, 2017).
  120. Pinheiro, R. & Young, M. The university as an adaptive resilient organization: A complex systems perspective. In Theory and method in higher education research, vol. 3, 119-136 (Emerald Publishing Limited, 2017).
  121. Balsa-Barreiro, J., Vié, A., Morales, A. J. & Cebrián, M. Deglobalization in a hyper-connected world. Palgrave Commun. 6, 1-4 (2020).
  122. Liu, Z. Sociological perspectives on artificial intelligence: A typological reading. Sociol. Compass 15, e12851 (2021).
  123. Pescetelli, N., Rutherford, A. & Rahwan, I. Modularity and composite diversity affect the collective gathering of information online. Nat. Commun. 12, 3195 (2021).

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Tsvetkova, M., Yasseri, T., Pescetelli, N., & Werner, T.
Affiliations
  • London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
  • University College Dublin (IE)
  • Max Planck Institute for Human Development (DE)
Corresponding author
Tsvetkova, Milena
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Volume
8
Issue
10
Pages
1864-1876
ISSN
2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2402.14410
arXiv
2402.14410
OpenAlex
W4403637443
Cited by
83
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 3
FWCI
6.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Santa Fe Institute
  • Irish Research Council (IRCLA/2022/3217)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
Keywords
human-machine interaction, artificial intelligence, algorithms, bots, robots, social media, high-frequency trading, group decision making, coordination, competition, contagion, complex social systems, AI governance, AI design
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Decision Making, Humans, Man-Machine Systems, Robotics, Sociology, Social Media

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.