Pub Date : 2024-11-04DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-02033-0
Xiaobing Zhai, Henry H. Y. Tong, Chi Kin Lam, Abao Xing, Yuyang Sha, Gang Luo, Weiyu Meng, Junfeng Li, Miao Zhou, Yangxi Huang, Ling Shing Wong, Cuicui Wang, Kefeng Li
Depression represents a significant global public health challenge, and marital status has been recognized as a potential risk factor. However, previous investigations of this association have primarily focused on Western samples with substantial heterogeneity. Our study aimed to examine the association between marital status and depressive symptoms across countries with diverse cultural backgrounds using a large-scale, two-stage, cross-country analysis. We used nationally representative, de-identified individual-level data from seven countries, including the USA, the UK, Mexico, Ireland, Korea, China and Indonesia (106,556 cross-sectional and 20,865 longitudinal participants), representing approximately 541 million adults. The follow-up duration ranged from 4 to 18 years. Our analysis revealed that unmarried individuals had a higher risk of depressive symptoms than their married counterparts across all countries (pooled odds ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.61–2.14). However, the magnitude of this risk was influenced by country, sex and education level, with greater risk in Western versus Eastern countries (β = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16–0.56; P < 0.001), among males versus females (β = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.003–0.47; P = 0.047) and among those with higher versus lower educational attainment (β2 = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.11–0.56; P = 0.003). Furthermore, alcohol drinking causally mediated increased later depressive symptom risk among widowed, divorced/separated and single Chinese, Korean and Mexican participants (all P < 0.001). Similarly, smoking was as identified as a causal mediator among single individuals in China and Mexico, and the results remained unchanged in the bootstrap resampling validation and the sensitivity analyses. Our cross-country analysis suggests that unmarried individuals may be at greater risk of depression, and any efforts to mitigate this risk should consider the roles of cultural context, sex, educational attainment and substance use. Analysing data from seven countries, this study found that unmarried individuals had a higher depression risk than married individuals. This risk was higher in Western countries, among males and among those with higher educational attainment.
抑郁症是全球公共卫生面临的一项重大挑战，而婚姻状况被认为是一个潜在的风险因素。然而，以往对这一关联的调查主要集中在西方样本中，存在很大的异质性。我们的研究旨在通过大规模的两阶段跨国分析，研究不同文化背景国家的婚姻状况与抑郁症状之间的关联。我们使用了来自美国、英国、墨西哥、爱尔兰、韩国、中国和印度尼西亚等七个国家（106556 名横断面参与者和 20865 名纵向参与者）的具有全国代表性、去身份化的个人层面数据，这些数据代表了约 5.41 亿成年人。随访时间从 4 年到 18 年不等。我们的分析表明，在所有国家中，未婚者出现抑郁症状的风险高于已婚者（汇总赔率为 1.86；95% 置信区间 (CI)，1.61-2.14）。然而，这种风险的大小受国家、性别和教育水平的影响，西方国家相对于东方国家（β = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.56; P <0.001）、男性相对于女性（β = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.003-0.47; P = 0.047）以及教育程度较高相对于较低者（β2 = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.11-0.56; P = 0.003）的风险更大。此外，在丧偶、离婚/分居和单身的中国人、韩国人和墨西哥人中，饮酒对日后抑郁症状风险的增加具有因果中介作用（均为 P < 0.001）。同样，在中国和墨西哥的单身参与者中，吸烟也被认为是一个因果中介因素，并且在自举重采样验证和敏感性分析中结果保持不变。我们的跨国分析表明，未婚人士患抑郁症的风险可能更大，任何降低这种风险的努力都应考虑文化背景、性别、教育程度和药物使用的作用。
{"title":"Association and causal mediation between marital status and depression in seven countries","authors":"Xiaobing Zhai, Henry H. Y. Tong, Chi Kin Lam, Abao Xing, Yuyang Sha, Gang Luo, Weiyu Meng, Junfeng Li, Miao Zhou, Yangxi Huang, Ling Shing Wong, Cuicui Wang, Kefeng Li","doi":"10.1038/s41562-024-02033-0","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s41562-024-02033-0","url":null,"abstract":"Depression represents a significant global public health challenge, and marital status has been recognized as a potential risk factor. However, previous investigations of this association have primarily focused on Western samples with substantial heterogeneity. Our study aimed to examine the association between marital status and depressive symptoms across countries with diverse cultural backgrounds using a large-scale, two-stage, cross-country analysis. We used nationally representative, de-identified individual-level data from seven countries, including the USA, the UK, Mexico, Ireland, Korea, China and Indonesia (106,556 cross-sectional and 20,865 longitudinal participants), representing approximately 541 million adults. The follow-up duration ranged from 4 to 18 years. Our analysis revealed that unmarried individuals had a higher risk of depressive symptoms than their married counterparts across all countries (pooled odds ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.61–2.14). However, the magnitude of this risk was influenced by country, sex and education level, with greater risk in Western versus Eastern countries (β = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16–0.56; P < 0.001), among males versus females (β = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.003–0.47; P = 0.047) and among those with higher versus lower educational attainment (β2 = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.11–0.56; P = 0.003). Furthermore, alcohol drinking causally mediated increased later depressive symptom risk among widowed, divorced/separated and single Chinese, Korean and Mexican participants (all P < 0.001). Similarly, smoking was as identified as a causal mediator among single individuals in China and Mexico, and the results remained unchanged in the bootstrap resampling validation and the sensitivity analyses. Our cross-country analysis suggests that unmarried individuals may be at greater risk of depression, and any efforts to mitigate this risk should consider the roles of cultural context, sex, educational attainment and substance use. Analysing data from seven countries, this study found that unmarried individuals had a higher depression risk than married individuals. This risk was higher in Western countries, among males and among those with higher educational attainment.","PeriodicalId":19074,"journal":{"name":"Nature Human Behaviour","volume":"8 12","pages":"2392-2405"},"PeriodicalIF":21.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142574439","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-04DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-02023-2
Gordon Pennycook, Adam J. Berinsky, Puneet Bhargava, Hause Lin, Rocky Cole, Beth Goldberg, Stephan Lewandowsky, David G. Rand
Misinformation is a major focus of intervention efforts. Psychological inoculation—an intervention intended to help people identify manipulation techniques—is being adopted at scale around the globe. Yet the efficacy of this approach for increasing belief accuracy remains unclear, as prior work uses synthetic materials that do not contain claims of truth. To address this issue, we conducted five studies with 7,286 online participants using a set of news headlines based on real-world true/false content in which we systematically varied the presence or absence of emotional manipulation. Although an emotional manipulation inoculation did help participants identify emotional manipulation, there was no improvement in participants’ ability to tell truth from falsehood. However, when the inoculation was paired with an intervention that draws people’s attention to accuracy, the combined intervention did successfully improve truth discernment (by increasing belief in true content). These results provide evidence for synergy between popular misinformation interventions. Pennycook et al. find that psychological inoculation, an intervention that is intended to help people detect misinformation and is being adopted at scale globally, may not be effective unless it is combined with an accuracy reminder. This demonstrates synergy between interventions.
{"title":"Inoculation and accuracy prompting increase accuracy discernment in combination but not alone","authors":"Gordon Pennycook, Adam J. Berinsky, Puneet Bhargava, Hause Lin, Rocky Cole, Beth Goldberg, Stephan Lewandowsky, David G. Rand","doi":"10.1038/s41562-024-02023-2","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s41562-024-02023-2","url":null,"abstract":"Misinformation is a major focus of intervention efforts. Psychological inoculation—an intervention intended to help people identify manipulation techniques—is being adopted at scale around the globe. Yet the efficacy of this approach for increasing belief accuracy remains unclear, as prior work uses synthetic materials that do not contain claims of truth. To address this issue, we conducted five studies with 7,286 online participants using a set of news headlines based on real-world true/false content in which we systematically varied the presence or absence of emotional manipulation. Although an emotional manipulation inoculation did help participants identify emotional manipulation, there was no improvement in participants’ ability to tell truth from falsehood. However, when the inoculation was paired with an intervention that draws people’s attention to accuracy, the combined intervention did successfully improve truth discernment (by increasing belief in true content). These results provide evidence for synergy between popular misinformation interventions. Pennycook et al. find that psychological inoculation, an intervention that is intended to help people detect misinformation and is being adopted at scale globally, may not be effective unless it is combined with an accuracy reminder. This demonstrates synergy between interventions.","PeriodicalId":19074,"journal":{"name":"Nature Human Behaviour","volume":"8 12","pages":"2330-2341"},"PeriodicalIF":21.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142574710","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-02068-3
Linette Kunin, Sabrina H. Piccolo, Rebecca Saxe, Shari Liu
{"title":"Publisher Correction: Perceptual and conceptual novelty independently guide infant looking behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Linette Kunin, Sabrina H. Piccolo, Rebecca Saxe, Shari Liu","doi":"10.1038/s41562-024-02068-3","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s41562-024-02068-3","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":19074,"journal":{"name":"Nature Human Behaviour","volume":"8 12","pages":"2437-2437"},"PeriodicalIF":21.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02068-3.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142561822","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-10-28DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-02063-8
Jessica Pac
Intergenerational mobility — an adult’s ability to exit poverty and earn more than their parents — is falling in the USA. Parolin et al. compare intergenerational poverty persistence (a measure of immobility) in the USA to four peer countries and conclude that disproportionately high poverty persistence in the USA is due to a weak safety net.
{"title":"Intergenerational poverty persistence","authors":"Jessica Pac","doi":"10.1038/s41562-024-02063-8","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s41562-024-02063-8","url":null,"abstract":"Intergenerational mobility — an adult’s ability to exit poverty and earn more than their parents — is falling in the USA. Parolin et al. compare intergenerational poverty persistence (a measure of immobility) in the USA to four peer countries and conclude that disproportionately high poverty persistence in the USA is due to a weak safety net.","PeriodicalId":19074,"journal":{"name":"Nature Human Behaviour","volume":"9 2","pages":"243-244"},"PeriodicalIF":21.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142519254","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-10-28DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-02029-w
Zachary Parolin, Rafael Pintro-Schmitt, Gøsta Esping-Andersen, Peter Fallesen
Childhood poverty increases the likelihood of adult poverty. However, past research offers conflicting accounts of cross-national variation in the strength of—and mechanisms underpinning—the intergenerational persistence of poverty. Here the authors investigate differences in intergenerational poverty in the United States, Australia, Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom using administrative- and survey-based panel datasets. Intergenerational poverty is decomposed into family background effects, mediation effects, tax and transfer insurance effects and a residual poverty penalty. The intergenerational persistence of poverty is 0.43 in the United States (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.40–0.46; P < 0.001), compared with 0.16 in the United Kingdom (95% CI = 0.07–0.25; P < 0.001) and 0.08 in Denmark (95% CI = 0.08–0.08; P < 0.001). The US disadvantage is not channelled through family background, mediators, neighbourhood effects or racial or ethnic discrimination. Instead, the United States has comparatively weak tax and transfer insurance effects and a more severe residual poverty penalty. If the United States were to adopt the tax and transfer insurance effects of its peer countries, its intergenerational poverty persistence could decrease by more than one-third. Children born in poverty are more likely to experience poverty as adults, but this likelihood is greater in the United States than in Australia, Denmark, Germany or the United Kingdom. The authors examine what mediates the differences in intergenerational poverty between countries.
童年时期的贫困会增加成年后贫困的可能性。然而，过去的研究对贫困代际持续性的强度和机制的跨国差异提供了相互矛盾的描述。在本文中，作者利用基于行政和调查的面板数据集，研究了美国、澳大利亚、丹麦、德国和英国代际贫困的差异。代际贫困被分解为家庭背景效应、中介效应、税收和转移保险效应以及剩余贫困惩罚。美国的贫困代际持续率为 0.43（95% 置信区间 (CI) = 0.40-0.46；P <；0.001），而英国为 0.16（95% CI = 0.07-0.25；P <；0.001），丹麦为 0.08（95% CI = 0.08-0.08；P <；0.001）。美国的劣势并不是通过家庭背景、中介、邻里效应或种族或民族歧视造成的。相反，美国的税收和转移保险效应相对较弱，剩余贫困惩罚更为严重。如果美国采用同类国家的税收和转移保险效应，其代际贫困的持续性将减少三分之一以上。
{"title":"Intergenerational persistence of poverty in five high-income countries","authors":"Zachary Parolin, Rafael Pintro-Schmitt, Gøsta Esping-Andersen, Peter Fallesen","doi":"10.1038/s41562-024-02029-w","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s41562-024-02029-w","url":null,"abstract":"Childhood poverty increases the likelihood of adult poverty. However, past research offers conflicting accounts of cross-national variation in the strength of—and mechanisms underpinning—the intergenerational persistence of poverty. Here the authors investigate differences in intergenerational poverty in the United States, Australia, Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom using administrative- and survey-based panel datasets. Intergenerational poverty is decomposed into family background effects, mediation effects, tax and transfer insurance effects and a residual poverty penalty. The intergenerational persistence of poverty is 0.43 in the United States (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.40–0.46; P < 0.001), compared with 0.16 in the United Kingdom (95% CI = 0.07–0.25; P < 0.001) and 0.08 in Denmark (95% CI = 0.08–0.08; P < 0.001). The US disadvantage is not channelled through family background, mediators, neighbourhood effects or racial or ethnic discrimination. Instead, the United States has comparatively weak tax and transfer insurance effects and a more severe residual poverty penalty. If the United States were to adopt the tax and transfer insurance effects of its peer countries, its intergenerational poverty persistence could decrease by more than one-third. Children born in poverty are more likely to experience poverty as adults, but this likelihood is greater in the United States than in Australia, Denmark, Germany or the United Kingdom. The authors examine what mediates the differences in intergenerational poverty between countries.","PeriodicalId":19074,"journal":{"name":"Nature Human Behaviour","volume":"9 2","pages":"254-267"},"PeriodicalIF":21.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02029-w.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142519257","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-10-28DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-02024-1
Michelle Vaccaro, Abdullah Almaatouq, Thomas Malone
Inspired by the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) to augment humans, researchers have studied human–AI systems involving different tasks, systems and populations. Despite such a large body of work, we lack a broad conceptual understanding of when combinations of humans and AI are better than either alone. Here we addressed this question by conducting a preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis of 106 experimental studies reporting 370 effect sizes. We searched an interdisciplinary set of databases (the Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library, the Web of Science and the Association for Information Systems eLibrary) for studies published between 1 January 2020 and 30 June 2023. Each study was required to include an original human-participants experiment that evaluated the performance of humans alone, AI alone and human–AI combinations. First, we found that, on average, human–AI combinations performed significantly worse than the best of humans or AI alone (Hedges’ g = −0.23; 95% confidence interval, −0.39 to −0.07). Second, we found performance losses in tasks that involved making decisions and significantly greater gains in tasks that involved creating content. Finally, when humans outperformed AI alone, we found performance gains in the combination, but when AI outperformed humans alone, we found losses. Limitations of the evidence assessed here include possible publication bias and variations in the study designs analysed. Overall, these findings highlight the heterogeneity of the effects of human–AI collaboration and point to promising avenues for improving human–AI systems. Vaccaro et al. present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of human–AI combinations, finding that on average, human–AI combinations performed significantly worse than the best of humans or AI alone. They also found performance losses in decision-making tasks and significantly greater gains in content creation tasks.
{"title":"When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Michelle Vaccaro, Abdullah Almaatouq, Thomas Malone","doi":"10.1038/s41562-024-02024-1","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s41562-024-02024-1","url":null,"abstract":"Inspired by the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) to augment humans, researchers have studied human–AI systems involving different tasks, systems and populations. Despite such a large body of work, we lack a broad conceptual understanding of when combinations of humans and AI are better than either alone. Here we addressed this question by conducting a preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis of 106 experimental studies reporting 370 effect sizes. We searched an interdisciplinary set of databases (the Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library, the Web of Science and the Association for Information Systems eLibrary) for studies published between 1 January 2020 and 30 June 2023. Each study was required to include an original human-participants experiment that evaluated the performance of humans alone, AI alone and human–AI combinations. First, we found that, on average, human–AI combinations performed significantly worse than the best of humans or AI alone (Hedges’ g = −0.23; 95% confidence interval, −0.39 to −0.07). Second, we found performance losses in tasks that involved making decisions and significantly greater gains in tasks that involved creating content. Finally, when humans outperformed AI alone, we found performance gains in the combination, but when AI outperformed humans alone, we found losses. Limitations of the evidence assessed here include possible publication bias and variations in the study designs analysed. Overall, these findings highlight the heterogeneity of the effects of human–AI collaboration and point to promising avenues for improving human–AI systems. Vaccaro et al. present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the performance of human–AI combinations, finding that on average, human–AI combinations performed significantly worse than the best of humans or AI alone. They also found performance losses in decision-making tasks and significantly greater gains in content creation tasks.","PeriodicalId":19074,"journal":{"name":"Nature Human Behaviour","volume":"8 12","pages":"2293-2303"},"PeriodicalIF":21.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02024-1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142519255","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-10-22DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-01995-5
Massimo Chiriatti, Marianna Ganapini, Enrico Panai, Mario Ubiali, Giuseppe Riva
{"title":"The case for human–AI interaction as system 0 thinking","authors":"Massimo Chiriatti, Marianna Ganapini, Enrico Panai, Mario Ubiali, Giuseppe Riva","doi":"10.1038/s41562-024-01995-5","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s41562-024-01995-5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":19074,"journal":{"name":"Nature Human Behaviour","volume":"8 10","pages":"1829-1830"},"PeriodicalIF":21.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142486673","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-10-22DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-02001-8
Milena Tsvetkova, Taha Yasseri, Niccolo Pescetelli, Tobias Werner
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. This Perspective calls for a new sociology of humans and machines to study groups and networks comprising multiple interacting humans and algorithms, bots or robots. A deeper understanding of human–machine social systems can contribute new and valued insights for AI research, design and policy.
{"title":"A new sociology of humans and machines","authors":"Milena Tsvetkova, Taha Yasseri, Niccolo Pescetelli, Tobias Werner","doi":"10.1038/s41562-024-02001-8","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s41562-024-02001-8","url":null,"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. This Perspective calls for a new sociology of humans and machines to study groups and networks comprising multiple interacting humans and algorithms, bots or robots. A deeper understanding of human–machine social systems can contribute new and valued insights for AI research, design and policy.","PeriodicalId":19074,"journal":{"name":"Nature Human Behaviour","volume":"8 10","pages":"1864-1876"},"PeriodicalIF":21.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142487019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-10-22DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-02005-4
Christopher Starke, Alfio Ventura, Clara Bersch, Meeyoung Cha, Claes de Vreese, Philipp Doebler, Mengchen Dong, Nicole Krämer, Margarita Leib, Jochen Peter, Lea Schäfer, Ivan Soraperra, Jessica Szczuka, Erik Tuchtfeld, Rebecca Wald, Nils Köbis
As artificial intelligence tools become more sophisticated, humans build synthetic relationships with them. Synthetic relationships differ fundamentally from traditional human–machine interactions and present new risks, such as privacy breaches, psychological manipulation and the erosion of human autonomy. This necessitates proactive, human-centred policies.
{"title":"Risks and protective measures for synthetic relationships","authors":"Christopher Starke, Alfio Ventura, Clara Bersch, Meeyoung Cha, Claes de Vreese, Philipp Doebler, Mengchen Dong, Nicole Krämer, Margarita Leib, Jochen Peter, Lea Schäfer, Ivan Soraperra, Jessica Szczuka, Erik Tuchtfeld, Rebecca Wald, Nils Köbis","doi":"10.1038/s41562-024-02005-4","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s41562-024-02005-4","url":null,"abstract":"As artificial intelligence tools become more sophisticated, humans build synthetic relationships with them. Synthetic relationships differ fundamentally from traditional human–machine interactions and present new risks, such as privacy breaches, psychological manipulation and the erosion of human autonomy. This necessitates proactive, human-centred policies.","PeriodicalId":19074,"journal":{"name":"Nature Human Behaviour","volume":"8 10","pages":"1834-1836"},"PeriodicalIF":21.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142486674","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-10-22DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-01991-9
Katherine M. Collins, Ilia Sucholutsky, Umang Bhatt, Kartik Chandra, Lionel Wong, Mina Lee, Cedegao E. Zhang, Tan Zhi-Xuan, Mark Ho, Vikash Mansinghka, Adrian Weller, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Thomas L. Griffiths
What do we want from machine intelligence? We envision machines that are not just tools for thought but partners in thought: reasonable, insightful, knowledgeable, reliable and trustworthy systems that think with us. Current artificial intelligence systems satisfy some of these criteria, some of the time. In this Perspective, we show how the science of collaborative cognition can be put to work to engineer systems that really can be called ‘thought partners’, systems built to meet our expectations and complement our limitations. We lay out several modes of collaborative thought in which humans and artificial intelligence thought partners can engage, and we propose desiderata for human-compatible thought partnerships. Drawing on motifs from computational cognitive science, we motivate an alternative scaling path for the design of thought partners and ecosystems around their use through a Bayesian lens, whereby the partners we construct actively build and reason over models of the human and world. In this Perspective, the authors advance a view for the science of collaborative cognition to engineer systems that can be considered thought partners, systems built to meet our expectations and complement our limitations.
{"title":"Building machines that learn and think with people","authors":"Katherine M. Collins, Ilia Sucholutsky, Umang Bhatt, Kartik Chandra, Lionel Wong, Mina Lee, Cedegao E. Zhang, Tan Zhi-Xuan, Mark Ho, Vikash Mansinghka, Adrian Weller, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Thomas L. Griffiths","doi":"10.1038/s41562-024-01991-9","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s41562-024-01991-9","url":null,"abstract":"What do we want from machine intelligence? We envision machines that are not just tools for thought but partners in thought: reasonable, insightful, knowledgeable, reliable and trustworthy systems that think with us. Current artificial intelligence systems satisfy some of these criteria, some of the time. In this Perspective, we show how the science of collaborative cognition can be put to work to engineer systems that really can be called ‘thought partners’, systems built to meet our expectations and complement our limitations. We lay out several modes of collaborative thought in which humans and artificial intelligence thought partners can engage, and we propose desiderata for human-compatible thought partnerships. Drawing on motifs from computational cognitive science, we motivate an alternative scaling path for the design of thought partners and ecosystems around their use through a Bayesian lens, whereby the partners we construct actively build and reason over models of the human and world. In this Perspective, the authors advance a view for the science of collaborative cognition to engineer systems that can be considered thought partners, systems built to meet our expectations and complement our limitations.","PeriodicalId":19074,"journal":{"name":"Nature Human Behaviour","volume":"8 10","pages":"1851-1863"},"PeriodicalIF":21.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142486675","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：