Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Artificially intelligent agents in the social and behavioral sciences: A history and outlook

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that AI and the social and behavioral sciences have shaped each other for 75 years through a two-part rhythm: quick adoption of each new technology, then slower science-driven refinement.

desk verdict Readable, well-sourced historical synthesis; the two-process thesis is plausible but under-tested and needs sharper caveats. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.05743 v3 pith:CSKBIHOJ submitted 2025-10-07 cs.AI cs.CY

Petter Holme , Milena Tsvetkova This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.CY
keywords artificialintelligencesocialsciencebehavioralagent-basedmodelslargelanguagehistoryofcomputingcyberneticscomputational
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the relationship between artificial intelligence and the social and behavioral sciences is not a one-way import of tools but a long, bidirectional co-evolution. It identifies two recurring processes: technically minded social scientists quickly pick up each new AI breakthrough and design new kinds of studies with it, and then these research lines settle into a slower evolution organized around scientific content. The authors argue that this pattern has repeated from early computer simulations to today's large language models, and that the same technologies are now changing the society being studied. A sympathetic reader would care because this framing corrects the common picture of AI arriving from afar and clarifies why the current wave of generative-AI social science is both promising and epistemically tricky.

What carries the argument

The paper's organizing device is the two-process model of scientific change: a fast adoption loop (new AI capability meets open-minded social scientists) followed by a slow content loop (research questions and methods settle around the science). Around this it places a taxonomy of AI roles—AI as analysis tool, as simulation/digital twin, as experimental participant, and as an object or social force—which lets the authors order a 75-year chronology as parallel streams rather than a single timeline.

What would settle it

A single well-documented case where a major AI breakthrough was ignored by social scientists for a decade or more, or where a hot line of AI-social research died out without leaving a content-driven branch, would weaken the two-process pattern. Concretely, a systematic bibliometric study showing that leading social-science journals imported AI methods but never exported ideas back to AI—one-way flow—would falsify the bidirectional claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the history of AI in the social and behavioral sciences is best understood as a two-process dynamic. First, open-minded social and behavioral scientists rapidly adopt any major technical breakthrough in AI and use it to create new types of investigations—this explains why the first social-science Ph.D. based on computer science appeared only about five years after the first programmable computer, and why chatbots were quickly inserted into experiments after 2022. Second, each such burst branches into a slower, content-centered line of research that evolves around the science itself rather than the technology. The paper presents this as a corrective to the view of AI

Load-bearing premise

The narrative rests on the reliability and representativeness of roughly 250 cited secondary sources, including several specific first claims (first social-science Ph.D. based on computer science, first AI program); the paper does not independently verify these historical episodes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the pattern holds, today's wave of generative-AI experiments will not be a passing fad: the early chatbot studies will seed a slower, content-driven research program that outlives the hype.
  • The history implies that AI's influence on these sciences has never been one-directional; social-science ideas have shaped AI design, so accounts that treat AI as an external import are incomplete.
  • The current replace-humans-with-chatbots strategy is a low-creativity early phase; the paper predicts more substantive work will emerge as studies move beyond documenting AI capabilities toward understanding human behavior.
  • The same technologies that provide research tools are altering social behavior itself, creating a feedback loop that social scientists must study as part of the subject matter.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable implication of the two-process model: bibliometric traces of citation flows between AI venues and social-science venues should show rapid cross-disciplinary citation bursts after each major capability jump, followed by a settling into within-field citation clusters; this can be checked.
  • The paper's missing-topic observation suggests the highest-value near-term research may be using LLM-agent experiments not to replace human subjects but to generate hypotheses about human behavior that are then tested on humans.
  • If the two-process rhythm is real, the current enthusiasm may follow the arc of earlier waves, and infrastructure for replicability (versioned models, shared prompts, benchmark batteries) will determine whether the content-centered branch thrives or decays.
  • The paper's own admission that it sketches rather than reviews means its chronology should be read as an interpretation; independent archives of early social simulations could confirm or revise the first claims.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper surveys the history of artificial intelligence in the social and behavioral sciences, from early computer simulations and cybernetics to contemporary large language models. The authors argue that the relationship has been bidirectional and co-evolutionary, and they propose two main processes: rapid adoption of technical breakthroughs by social and behavioral scientists, followed by slower, content-centered evolution of those research lines. The paper is explicitly non-comprehensive and sketches multiple streams of research, including systems dynamics, symbolic AI and expert systems, connectionism, complexity science, agent-based models, network science, big data, crowdsourcing, and generative AI. The central contribution is an interpretive historical narrative rather than a new empirical result.

Significance. If accepted, the paper provides a valuable corrective to the one-way 'AI as an imported tool' narrative and offers a coherent organizational framework for a disparate literature. It is broad, well-referenced, and clearly structured, with useful schematic figures and an honest statement of scope. The emphasis on bidirectional influence between AI and the social/behavioral sciences is a useful perspective for both historians and practitioners. The main weakness is that the two-process thesis is stated as a general pattern but is supported only by curated examples; the paper does not define its key terms or address counterexamples, so the thesis remains an interpretive gloss rather than a demonstrated historical generalization.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 1] The central claim is the two-process thesis: 'any technical breakthrough is typically rapidly adopted by open-minded social and behavioral scientists' and then 'branches off to follow a slower-paced evolution centered around the scientific content.' This is a strong universal generalization, but the paper does not define 'rapidly,' 'line of research,' or 'branching,' nor does it provide a systematic basis for the 'typically.' The evidence is a deliberately non-comprehensive selection of mostly successful examples. The paper should either soften the thesis to an interpretive proposal—e.g., 'we highlight two recurring patterns'—or add a discussion of selection criteria and plausible counterexamples (neglected breakthroughs, dead research lines, one-way transfers without feedback). As written, the narrative does not establish the general claim; it is the load-bearing element of the paper's
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 8.2] The sentence 'Tessler et al., found AI capable of' is incomplete; the finding is missing. Please complete the sentence and ensure the reference is properly cited.
  2. [Section 2] The claim that Hägerstrand's 1953 thesis is 'the first social-science Ph.D. thesis based on computer science' is a strong precedence claim with no corroborating evidence. Since precedents of this kind are difficult to establish, consider replacing 'the first' with 'one of the first' or providing a source that makes the precedence claim.
  3. [Figure 1 caption] Typo: 'Illustation' should be 'Illustration.'
  4. [Section 7.3] Typo: 'nacent' should be 'nascent.' Also, 'social and behavior sciences' appears to be missing 'behavioral' or should be 'social and behavioral sciences.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: a historical review with no fitted parameters, derivations, or self-cited uniqueness arguments; self-citations appear only as examples of research streams.

full rationale

This is a narrative review, not a derivation. The paper's two-process thesis—that technical breakthroughs are typically rapidly adopted by social/behavioral scientists and then branch into slower, content-centered evolution—is an interpretive historical claim supported by selected episodes. The authors explicitly disclaim comprehensiveness ('we will not give a comprehensive review of the recent literature as other papers do that[59], but we will sketch the current state and trends'), which raises representativeness or cherry-picking concerns, but cherry-picking is not circularity. There are no equations, no fitted parameters, no statistical 'predictions' forced by construction, and no uniqueness theorems invoked to make a model choice appear forced. The self-citations (e.g., Holme & Ghoshal 2006/2009 for networking agents, Tsvetkova et al. 2017/2024 for human-machine networks, Holme 2022 for complexity science, Han et al. 2025 for LLM cooperation) are used as historical examples of ongoing research lines, not as load-bearing evidence for the paper's general thesis. Even where 'first' claims rely on secondary sources and are not independently verified, that is an evidential/correctness issue, not a circular reduction of the argument to its own inputs. Accordingly, no circular step is identified and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a historical review; the central claim depends on the reliability of cited sources and the chosen interpretive framing. There are no fitted parameters or invented entities. The paper's own scope disclaimer (Section 1) limits the evidentiary burden but also prevents it from being a comprehensive or verifiable account.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The cited references accurately and representatively describe the historical development of AI in the social and behavioral sciences.
    The paper builds its chronological narrative on secondary sources (e.g., McCorduck 1991 for AI history, Medina 2011 for Cybersyn). If these are inaccurate or the selection is biased, the paper's timeline and thesis are unsupported. No independent verification is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The five-motivation classification and the two-process thesis are adequate interpretive frameworks for the history.
    The paper imposes a structure on historical material that is not itself derived from the sources; it is a framing choice specific to this paper. If this framing is rejected, the review becomes a collection of anecdotes rather than a coherent thesis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Artificially intelligent agents in the social and behavioral sciences: A history and outlook." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CSKBIHOJ

@misc{pith2026251005743,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Artificially intelligent agents in the social and behavioral sciences: A history and outlook},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CSKBIHOJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.05743}
}
read the original abstract

We review the historical development and current trends of artificially intelligent agents (agentic AI) in the social and behavioral sciences: from the first programmable computers, and social simulations soon thereafter, to today's experiments with large language models. This overview emphasizes the role of AI in the scientific process and the changes brought about, both through technological advancements and the broader evolution of science from around 1950 to the present. Some of the specific points we cover include: the challenges of presenting the first social simulation studies to a world unaware of computers, the rise of social systems science, intelligent game theoretic agents, the age of big data and the epistemic upheaval in its wake, and the current enthusiasm around applications of generative AI, and many other topics. A pervasive theme is how deeply entwined we are with the technologies we use to understand ourselves.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. When Bots Join the Team: Bot Adoption and the Institutional Fabric of Open-Source Software Projects

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across 2,991 GitHub projects, adopting a first bot is followed at the adoption month by more repeated collaboration, more bot-name references, fewer conflict cascades, and more distinctive output.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

249 extracted references · 15 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    H. Abbey . An examination of the Reed-Frost theory of epidemics.Hum. Biol., 24:201–233, 1952

    1952

  2. [2]

    G. Aher, R. I. Arriaga, and A. T . Kalai. Using large lan- guage models to simulate multiple humans and repli- cate human subject studies. InProceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML’23, page 17. JMLR.org, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Anderson

    C. Anderson. The end of theory: The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete.Wired, 16(7):16– 17, 2008

    2008

  4. [4]

    L. P . Argyle, E. C. Busby , J. R. Gubler, A. Lyman, J. Ol- cott, J. Pond, and D. Wingate. Testing theories of po- litical persuasion using AI.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 122(18):e2412815122, 2025

    2025

  5. [5]

    K. J. Arrow. The economic implications of learning by doing.Rev. Econ. Stud., 29(3):155–173, 1962

    1962

  6. [6]

    W . B. Arthur. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events.Econ. J., 99(394):116–131, 1989

    1989

  7. [7]

    W . B. Arthur.Complexity and the Economy. Oxford Uni- versity Press, Oxford, 2014

    2014

  8. [8]

    W . R. Ashby .Design for a Brain. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1954

    1954

Show all 249 references
  1. [9]

    Axelrod.The Evolution of Cooperation

    R. Axelrod.The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York, NY, 1984

    1984

  2. [10]

    Axtell and J

    R. Axtell and J. D. Farmer. Agent-based modeling in economics and finance: Past, present, and future. Tech- nical Report 2022-10, Oxford Institute for New Eco- nomic Thinking, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    R. L. Axtell, J. M. Epstein, J. S. Dean, G. J. Gumerman, A. C. Swedlund, J. Harburger, S. Chakravarty , R. Ham- mond, J. Parker, and M. Parker. Population growth and collapse in a multiagent model of the Kayenta Anasazi in Long House Valley .Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 99:7275...

    2002

  4. [12]

    C. A. Bail. Can generative AI improve social science? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 121(21):e2314021121, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Bala and S

    V . Bala and S. Goyal. A noncooperative model of network formation.Econometrica, 68(5):1181–1229, 2000

    2000

  6. [14]

    Barabási.Network Science

    A.-L. Barabási.Network Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Basar, D

    S. Basar, D. Coupland, and H. U. Obrist.The Age of Earthquakes: A Guide to the Extreme Present. Penguin Books, London, 2015

    2015

  8. [16]

    Baudrillard.Simulacra and Simulation

    J. Baudrillard.Simulacra and Simulation. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor MI, 1994

    1994

  9. [17]

    Baumann, P

    J. Baumann, P . Röttger, A. Urman, A. Wendsjö, F . M. P . del Arco, J. B. Gruber, and D. Hovy . Large language model hacking: Quantifying the hidden risks of using LLMs for text annotation. Preprint arXiv:2509.08825, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Beer.A Platform for Change

    S. Beer.A Platform for Change. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975

    1975

  11. [19]

    Beltratti, S

    A. Beltratti, S. Margarita, and P . Terna.Neural Net- works for Economic and Financial Modelling. Interna- tional Thomson Computer Press, London, 1999

    1999

  12. [20]

    V . J. Bermejo, A. Gago, R. H. Gálvez, and N. Harari. LLMs outperform outsourced human coders on com- plex textual analysis. Preprint SSRN/5020034, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    L. M. A. Bettencourt.Introduction to Urban Science. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    C. Biever. ChatGPT broke the Turing test: the race is on for new ways to assess AI.Nature, 619:686–689, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    M. Binz, E. Akata, M. Bethge, F . Brändle, F . Callaway , J. Coda-Forno, P . Dayan, C. Demircan, M. K. Eckstein, N. Éltet ˝o, T . L. Griffiths, S. Haridi, A. K. Jagadish, L. Ji-An, A. Kipnis, S. Kumar, T . Ludwig, M. Mathony , M. Mattar, A. Modirshanechi, S. S. Nath, J. C. Pet...

    2025

  16. [24]

    M. A. Boden.Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006

    2006

  17. [25]

    Boehm.Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior

    C. Boehm.Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Harvard University Press, Cam- bridge MA, 1999

    1999

  18. [26]

    Bohannon

    J. Bohannon. Social science for pennies.Science, 334(6054):307–307, 2011

    2011

  19. [27]

    Bohannon

    J. Bohannon. Mechanical turk upends social sciences. Science, 352(6291):1263–1264, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    D. A. Boiko, R. MacKnight, B. Kline, and G. Gomes. Au- tonomous chemical research with large language mod- els.Nature, 624:570–578, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Boissevain.Friends of Friends: Networks Manipula- tors and Coalitions

    J. Boissevain.Friends of Friends: Networks Manipula- tors and Coalitions. Routledge, Oxford, 1974

    1974

  22. [30]

    Brynjolfsson, D

    E. Brynjolfsson, D. Li, and L. Raymond. Generative AI at work.Q. J. Econ., 140(2):889–942, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    J. W . Burton, E. Lopez-Lopez, S. Hechtlinger, Z. Rah- wan, S. Aeschbach, M. A. Bakker, J. A. Becker, A. Berditchevskaia, J. Berger, L. Brinkmann, L. Flek, S. M. Herzog, S. Huang, S. Kapoor, A. Narayanan, A.-M. Nussberger, T . Yasseri, P . Nickl, A. Almaatouq, R. Her- twig, et...

    2024

  24. [32]

    Carley , J

    K. Carley , J. Kjaer-Hansen, A. Newell, and M. Prietula. Plural-Soar: A prolegomenon to artificial agents and organizational behavior. In M. Masuch and M. Varglien, editors,Artificial Intelligence in Organization and Man- agement Theory, pages 87–118. North-Holland, Ams- terdam, 1992

    1992

  25. [33]

    Carley and A

    K. Carley and A. Newell. The nature of the social agent. J. Math. Sociol., 19(4):221–262, 1994

    1994

  26. [34]

    Charpentier, R

    A. Charpentier, R. Élie, and C. Remlinger. Reinforce- ment learning in economics and finance.Comput. Econ., 62:425–462, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Z. Chu, S. Gianvecchio, H. Wang, and S. Jajodia. Who is tweeting on Twitter: human, bot, or cyborg? In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Computer Security Ap- plications Conference, page 21–30, 2010. Artificially intelligent agents in the social and behavioral sciences HOLME & TS...

    2010

  28. [36]

    M. Chui, E. Hazan, R. Roberts, A. Singla, K. Smaje, A. Sukharevsky , L. Yee, and R. Zemmel. The eco- nomic potential of generative AI: The next productivity frontier. Technical report, McKinsey & Company , June 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    K. M. Colby . Computer simulation of a neurotic process. In S. S. Tompkins and S. Messick, editors,Computer Simulation of Personality. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1963

    1963

  30. [38]

    J. S. Coleman. Social theory , social research, and a the- ory of action.Am. J. Sociol., 91:1309–1335, 1986

    1986

  31. [39]

    T . H. Costello, G. Pennycook, and D. G. Rand. Durably reducing conspiracy beliefs through dialogues with AI. Science, 385(6714):eadq1814, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    J. A. Danowski and P . Edison-Swift. Crisis effects on intraorganizational computer-based communica- tion.Commun. Res., 12(2):251–270, 1985

    1985

  33. [41]

    Dautenhahn, editor.Human Cognition and Social Agent Technology

    K. Dautenhahn, editor.Human Cognition and Social Agent Technology. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 2000

    2000

  34. [42]

    De Sola Pool, R

    I. De Sola Pool, R. P . Abelson, and S. Popkin.Can- didates, Issues, and Strategies: A Computer Simulation of the 1960 And 1964 Presidential Elections. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1965

    1960

  35. [43]

    de Sola Pool and A

    I. de Sola Pool and A. R. Kessler. The kaiser, the tsar, and the computer: Information processing in a crisis. Am. Behav. Sci., 8:31–38, 1965

    1965

  36. [44]

    Dell’Acqua, E

    F . Dell’Acqua, E. McFowland III, E. R. Mollick, H. Lifshitz-Assaf, K. Kellogg, S. Rajendran, L. Krayer, F . Candelon, and K. R. Lakhani. Navigating the jagged technological frontier: Field experimental evidence of the effects of ai on knowledge worker productivity and quality...

    2024

  37. [45]

    Devlin, M.-W

    J. Devlin, M.-W . Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional trans- formers for language understanding. Preprint arXiv:1810.04805, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    P . S. Dodds, R. Muhamad, and D. J. Watts. An experi- mental study of search in global social networks.Sci- ence, 301(5634):827–829, 2003

    2003

  39. [47]

    J. Durkin. Expert systems: A view of the field.IEEE Intell. Syst., 11:56–63, 1996

    1996

  40. [48]

    J. M. Epstein and R. Axtell.Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up. Brookings Institution Press, Washington DC, 1996

    1996

  41. [49]

    J. D. Farmer. Quantitative agent-based models: a promising alternative for macroeconomics.Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy, page graf027, 2025

    2025

  42. [50]

    J. D. Farmer and A. d’A. Belin. Artificial life: The com- ing evolution. In C. G. Langton, C. Taylor, J. D. Farmer, and S. Rasmussen, editors,Artificial Life II, pages 815–

  43. [51]

    Fehr and S

    E. Fehr and S. Gächter. Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments.Am. Econ. Rev., 90(4):980– 994, 2000

    2000

  44. [52]

    Feigenbaum

    E. Feigenbaum. Computer simulation of human behav- ior. InMidwest Human Factors Symposium, pages 1–8. AC Spark Plug, Chicago, 1963

    1963

  45. [53]

    J. H. Feldman and D. H. Ballard. Connectionist models and their properties.Cogn. Sci., 6:205–254, 1982

    1982

  46. [54]

    Fontana, F

    N. Fontana, F . Pierri, and L. M. Aiello. Nicer than hu- mans: How do large language models behave in the prisoner’s dilemma?Proc. Int. AAAI Conf. Weblogs. Soc. Media., 19(1):522–535, Jun. 2025

    2025

  47. [55]

    J. W . Forrester. Industrial dynamics.Harv. Bus. Rev., 16:37–66, 1958

    1958

  48. [56]

    L. C. Freeman.The Development of Social Network Anal- ysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science. Empirical Press, Vancouver, 2004

    2004

  49. [57]

    K. Frenken. A complexity approach to innovation net- works. the case of the aircraft industry (1909–1997). Res. Policy, 29(2):257–272, 2000

    1909

  50. [58]

    Froese and T

    T . Froese and T . Ziemke. Enactive artificial intelli- gence: Investigating the systemic organization of life and mind.Artif. Intell., 174(3-4):466–500, 2009

    2009

  51. [59]

    C. Gao, X. Lan, N. Li, Y. Yuan, J. Ding, Z. Zhou, F . Xu, and Y. Li. Large language models empowered agent- based modeling and simulation: a survey and perspec- tives.Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun., 11:1259, 2024

    2024

  52. [60]

    Gautam, A

    H. Gautam, A. Gaur, and D. K. Yadav. A survey on the impact of pre-trained language models in sentiment classification task.Int. J. Data Sci. Anal., 2025

    2025

  53. [61]

    D. H. Gelernter.Mirror Worlds. Oxford University Press, New York, 1991

    1991

  54. [62]

    Gershenson, V

    C. Gershenson, V . Trianni, J. Werfel, and H. Sayama. Self-organization and artificial life.Artif. Life, 26(3):391–408, 2020

    2020

  55. [63]

    J. J. Gibson.The Senses Considered as Perceptual Sys- tems. Houghton Mifflin, Boston MA, 1966

    1966

  56. [64]

    Giddens.The Constitution of Society

    A. Giddens.The Constitution of Society. Polity Press, Cambridge, 1984

    1984

  57. [65]

    J. P . Gilbert and E. A. Hammel. Computer simulation and analysis of problems in kinship and social struc- ture.Am. Anthropol., 68:71–93, 1966

    1966

  58. [66]

    Gilbert and R

    N. Gilbert and R. Conte.Artificial Societies: The Com- puter Simulation of Social Life. Routledge, London, 1995

    1995

  59. [67]

    Gilbert and K

    N. Gilbert and K. G. Troitzsch.Simulation for the social scientist. Open University Press, New York, 2005

    2005

  60. [68]

    M. S. Granovetter. The strength of weak ties.Am. J. Sociol., 78(6):1360–1380, 1973

    1973

  61. [69]

    Graves, A.-R

    A. Graves, A.-R. Mohamed, and G. Hinton. Speech recognition with deep recurrent neural networks. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pages 6645–6649, 2013

    2013

  62. [70]

    Grimmer, M

    J. Grimmer, M. E. Roberts, and B. M. Stewart. Ma- chine learning for social science: An agnostic approach. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 24:395–419, 2021

    2021

  63. [71]

    Grossmann, M

    I. Grossmann, M. Feinberg, D. C. Parker, N. A. Chris- takis, P . E. Tetlock, and W . A. Cunningham. AI and the transformation of social science research.Science, 380:1108–1109, 2023

    2023

  64. [72]

    J. T . Gullahorn and J. E. Gullahorn. Some computer applications in social science.Am. Sociol. Rev., 30:353– 365, 1965

    1965

  65. [73]

    Hackenburg and H

    K. Hackenburg and H. Margetts. Evaluating the persuasive influence of political microtargeting with large language models.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 121(24):e2403116121, 2024

    2024

  66. [74]

    Hagendorff, S

    T . Hagendorff, S. Fabi, and M. Kosinski. Human-like in- tuitive behavior and reasoning biases emerged in large language models but disappeared in ChatGPT .Nat. Artificially intelligent agents in the social and behavioral sciences HOLME & TSVETKOV A | 15 Comput. Sci., 3(10):83...

    2023

  67. [75]

    Hägerstrand.Innovationsförloppet ur Korologisk Syn- punkt

    T . Hägerstrand.Innovationsförloppet ur Korologisk Syn- punkt. Gleerup, Lund, 1953

    1953

  68. [76]

    Haigh, M

    T . Haigh, M. Priestley , and C. Rope. Los Alamos bets on ENIAC: Nuclear Monte Carlo simulations, 1947-1948. IEEE Ann. Hist. Comput., 36(3):42–63, 2014

    1947

  69. [77]

    Halevy , P

    A. Halevy , P . Norvig, and F . Pereira. The unreasonable effectiveness of data.IEEE Intell. Syst., 24(2):8–12, 2009

    2009

  70. [78]

    J. Han, B. Battu, I. Romi ´c, T . Rahwan, and P . Holme. Static network structure cannot stabilize cooperation among large language model agents.PLOS ONE, 20(5):0320094, 2025

    2025

  71. [79]

    H. H. Harman. Simulation: A review. InProc. Western Joint IRE-AIEE-ACM Computer Conference, pages 1–9, 1961

    1961

  72. [80]

    F . A. Hayek.The Sensory Order. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1952

    1952

  73. [81]

    F . A. Hayek.Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Eco- nomics. Touchstone, New York, 1969

    1969

  74. [82]

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition, pages 770–778, 2016

    2016

  75. [83]

    Hedström.Dissecting the Social

    P . Hedström.Dissecting the Social. Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, 2005

    2005

  76. [84]

    Hedström and G

    P . Hedström and G. Manzo. Recent trends in agent- based computational research: A brief introduction. Sociol. Methods Res., 44(2):179–185, 2015

    2015

  77. [85]

    S. J. Heims.The Cybernetics Group. MIT Press, Cam- bridge MA, 1991

    1991

  78. [86]

    HENDERSHOTT , C

    T . HENDERSHOTT , C. M. JONES, and A. J. MENKVELD. Does algorithmic trading improve liquidity?J. Finance, 66(1):1–33, 2011

    2011

  79. [87]

    Henrickson and B

    L. Henrickson and B. McKelvey . Foundations of “new” social science: Institutional legitimacy from philoso- phy , complexity science, postmodernism, and agent- based modeling.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 99:7288– 7295, 2002

    2002

  80. [88]

    M. A. Hernán and J. M. Robins.Causal Inference: What If. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, 2 edition, 2024

    2024

  81. [89]

    G. E. Hinton, S. Osindero, and Y.-W . Teh. A fast learn- ing algorithm for deep belief nets.Neural Comput., 18(7):1527–1554, 2006

    2006

  82. [90]

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P . Abbeel. Denoising diffusion proba- bilistic models.Adv. Neural Inf. Process., 33:6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  83. [91]

    Hochreiter and J

    S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber. Long short-term memory .Neural Comput., 9(8):1735–1780, 1997

    1997

  84. [92]

    J. M. Hofman, A. Sharma, and D. J. Watts. Pre- diction and explanation in social systems.Science, 355(6324):486–488, 2017

    2017

  85. [93]

    J. M. Hofman, D. J. Watts, S. Athey , F . Garip, T . L. Grif- fiths, J. Kleinberg, H. Margetts, S. Mullainathan, M. J. Salganik, S. Vazire, A. Vespignani, and T . Yarkoni. In- tegrating explanation and prediction in computational social science.Nature, 595:181–188, 2021

    2021

  86. [94]

    J. H. Holland.Emergence. Oxford University Press, Ox- ford, 1998

    1998

  87. [95]

    P . Holme. What complexity science is, and why . preprint arxiv:2201.03762, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Holme and G

    P . Holme and G. Ghoshal. Dynamics of networking agents competing for high centrality and low degree. Phys. Rev. Lett., 96(9):098701, 2006

    2006

  89. [97]

    Holme and G

    P . Holme and G. Ghoshal. The diplomat’s dilemma: Maximal power for minimal effort in social networks. In T . Gross and H. Sayama, editors,Adaptive Net- works: Theory, Models and Applications, pages 269–

  90. [98]

    Holme and F

    P . Holme and F . Liljeros. Mechanistic models in compu- tational social science.Front. Phys., 3:78, 2015

    2015

  91. [99]

    B. A. Huberman, P . L. T . Pirolli, J. E. Pitkow, and R. M. Lukose. Strong regularities in World Wide Web surfing. Science, 280(5360):95–97, 1998

    1998

  92. [100]

    C. R. Jones and B. K. Bergen. Large language models pass the Turing test. Preprint arXiv:2503.23674, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Kallis, V

    G. Kallis, V . Kostakis, S. Lange, B. Muraca, S. Paulson, and S. MAtthias. Research on degrowth.Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 43:291–316, 2018

    2018

  94. [102]

    P . R. Kalluri, W . Agnew, M. Cheng, K. Owens, L. Sol- daini, and A. Birhane. Computer-vision research pow- ers surveillance technology .Nature, 643:73–79, 2025

    2025

  95. [103]

    Kambhampati, K

    S. Kambhampati, K. Valmeekam, L. Guan, M. Verma, K. Stechly , S. Bhambri, L. Saldyt, and A. Murthy . LLMs can’t plan, but can help planning in LLM-modulo frameworks. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML’24, page 921. JMLR.org, 2024

    2024

  96. [104]

    A. Karjus. Machine-assisted quantitizing designs: aug- menting humanities and social sciences with artificial intelligence.Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun., 12:277, 2025

    2025

  97. [105]

    Karras, S

    T . Karras, S. Laine, and T . Aila. A style-based genera- tor architecture for generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4401–4410, 2019

    2019

  98. [106]

    Kauffman and S

    S. Kauffman and S. Levin. Towards a general theory of adaptive walks on rugged landscapes.J. Theor. Biol., 128(1):11–45, 1987

    1987

  99. [107]

    Kennedy , S

    R. Kennedy , S. Clifford, T . Burleigh, P . D. Waggoner, R. Jewell, and N. J. G. Winter. The shape of and so- lutions to the MTurk quality crisis.Political Sci. Res. Methods., 8(4):614–629, 2020

    2020

  100. [108]

    R. R. Kline.The Cybernetic Moment. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2015

    2015

  101. [109]

    Köbis, Z

    N. Köbis, Z. Rahwan, R. Rilla, B. I. Supriyatno, C. Bersch, T . Ajaj, J.-F . Bonnefon, and I. Rahwan. Del- egation to artificial intelligence can increase dishonest behaviour.Nature, 646:126–134, 2025

    2025

  102. [110]

    Krizhevsky , I

    A. Krizhevsky , I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton. ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 25, pages 1097–1105, 2012

    2012

  103. [111]

    J. O. Krugmann and J. Hartmann. Sentiment analysis in the age of generative AI.Cust. Needs Solut., 11:3, 2024

    2024

  104. [112]

    H. Kwak, C. Lee, H. Park, and S. Moon. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? InProceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web, pages 591–600, 2010

    2010

  105. [113]

    S. Lai, Y. Potter, J. Kim, R. Zhuang, D. Song, and J. Evans. Evolving AI collectives to enhance hu- Artificially intelligent agents in the social and behavioral sciences HOLME & TSVETKOV A | 16 man diversity and enable self-regulation. preprint arxiv:2402.12590, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  106. [114]

    C. G. Langton, editor.Artificial Life: Proceedings of an Interdisciplinary Workshop on the Synthesis and Simula- tion of Living Systems. Routledge, Milton Park, 1989

    1989

  107. [115]

    Latour.Science in Action

    B. Latour.Science in Action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1987

    1987

  108. [116]

    Lazer, A

    D. Lazer, A. Pentland, L. Adamic, S. Aral, A.-L. Barabási, D. Brewer, N. Christakis, N. Contractor, J. Fowler, M. Gutmann, T . Jebara, G. King, M. Macy , D. Roy , and M. Van Alstyne. Computational social science.Science, 323(5915):721–723, 2009

    2009

  109. [117]

    B. LeBaron. Agent-based computational finance: Sug- gested readings and early research.J. Econ. Dyn. Con- trol, 24(5-7):679–702, 2000

    2000

  110. [118]

    LeCun, Y

    Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton. Deep learning. Nature, 521:436–444, 2015

    2015

  111. [119]

    B. C. Lee and J. Chung. An empirical investigation of the impact of ChatGPT on creativity .Nat. Hum. Behav., 8:1906–1914, 2024

    1906

  112. [120]

    M. Lettau. Explaining the facts with adaptive agents: The case of mutual fund flows.J. Econ. Dyn. Control, 21(7):1117–1147, 1997

    1997

  113. [121]

    D. A. Levinthal. Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Manag. Sci., 43(7):934–950, 1997

    1997

  114. [122]

    Levy .Artificial Life

    S. Levy .Artificial Life. Penguin Random House, New York, 1993

    1993

  115. [123]

    H. Li, G. Zhang, P . Holme, S. Hu, and Z. Wang. Large language models are near-optimal decision- makers with a non-human learning behavior. Preprint arXiv:2506.16163, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  116. [124]

    C. Lu, C. Lu, R. T . Lange, J. Foerster, J. Clune, and D. Ha. The AI scientist: Towards fully automated open-ended scientific discovery . Preprint arXiv:2408.06292, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  117. [125]

    N. Luhmann. The autopoiesis of social systems. In F . Geyer and J. van der Zouwen, editors,Sociocyber- netic Paradoxes, pages 172–192. SAGE Publications, London, 1986

    1986

  118. [126]

    Lyon.Surveillance After Snowden

    D. Lyon.Surveillance After Snowden. Polity Press, Malden MA, 2015

    2015

  119. [127]

    M. W . Macy and R. Willer. From factors to actors: Com- putational sociology and agent-based modeling.Ann. Rev. Sociol., 28:143–166, 2002

    2002

  120. [128]

    Makovi, J.-F

    K. Makovi, J.-F . Bonnefon, M. Oudah, A. Sargsyan, and T . Rahwan. Rewards and punishments help humans overcome biases against cooperation partners assumed to be machines.iScience, 28:112833, 2025

    2025

  121. [129]

    Manyika, M

    J. Manyika, M. Chui, B. Brown, J. Bughin, R. Dobbs, C. Roxburgh, and A. H. Byers. Big data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity . Technical report, McKinsey Global Institute, 2011

    2011

  122. [130]

    C. March. Strategic interactions between humans and artificial intelligence: Lessons from experiments with computer players.J. Econ. Psychol., 87:102426, 2021

    2021

  123. [131]

    J. G. March. Exploration and exploitation in organiza- tional learning.Organ. Sci., 2(1):71–87, 1991

    1991

  124. [132]

    Maschler, S

    M. Maschler, S. Zamir, and E. Solan.Game Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013

    2013

  125. [133]

    Maturana and F

    H. Maturana and F . Varela.Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. D Reidel, Dordrecht, 1980

    1980

  126. [134]

    Maynard Smith.Evolution and the Theory of Games

    J. Maynard Smith.Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982

    1982

  127. [135]

    Mayor.Gods and Robots: Myths Machines, and An- cient Dreams of Technologys

    A. Mayor.Gods and Robots: Myths Machines, and An- cient Dreams of Technologys. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 2018

    2018

  128. [136]

    McCorduck.Machines Who Think

    P . McCorduck.Machines Who Think. A K Peters, Natick MA, 1991

    1991

  129. [137]

    McCulloch and W

    W . McCulloch and W . Pitts. A logical calculus of ideas immanent in nervous activity .Bull. Math. Biophys., 5:115–133, 1943

    1943

  130. [138]

    M. McLuhan. The reversal of the overheated image. Playboy, 15:131–134, 1968

    1968

  131. [139]

    M. Mead. The cybernetics of cybernetics. In H. von Foerster, J. D. White, L. J. Peterson, and J. K. Russell, editors,Purposive Systems, pages 1–11. Spartan Books, New York, 1968

    1968

  132. [140]

    D. H. Meadows, D. L. Meadows, J. Randers, and W . W . Behrens.The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books, New York, 1972

    1972

  133. [141]

    Medina.Cybernetic Revolutionaries: Technology and Politics in Allende’s Chile

    E. Medina.Cybernetic Revolutionaries: Technology and Politics in Allende’s Chile. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 2011

    2011

  134. [142]

    Q. Mei, Y. Xie, W . Yuan, and M. O. Jackson. A Turing test of whether AI chatbots are behaviorally similar to hu- mans.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 121(9):e2313925121, 2024

    2024

  135. [143]

    Meincke, G

    L. Meincke, G. Nave, and C. Terwiesch. Chatgpt de- creases idea diversity in brainstorming.Nat. Hum. Be- hav., 9(6):1107–1109, 2025

    2025

  136. [144]

    Merleau-Ponty .Phenomenology of Perception

    M. Merleau-Ponty .Phenomenology of Perception. Rout- ledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1978

    1978

  137. [145]

    R. K. Merton.Social Theory and Social Structure. The Free Press, Glencoe IL, 1949

    1949

  138. [146]

    Messeri and M

    L. Messeri and M. J. Crockett. Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research.Na- ture, 627:49–58, 2024

    2024

  139. [147]

    Mikolov, K

    T . Mikolov, K. Chen, G. Corrado, and J. Dean. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. Preprint arXiv:1301.3781, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  140. [148]

    G. Miller. The cognitive revolution: a historical per- spective.Trends Cogn. Sci., 7:141–144, 2003

    2003

  141. [149]

    M. Minsky . Why people think computers can’t.AI Mag., 3(4):3–15, 1982

    1982

  142. [150]

    Minsky .The Society of Mind

    M. Minsky .The Society of Mind. Simon & Schuster, New York, 1986

    1986

  143. [151]

    Mitchell.Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans

    M. Mitchell.Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans. Penguin, 2019

    2019

  144. [152]

    Montanaro, A

    B. Montanaro, A. Croce, and E. Ughetto. Venture capi- tal investments in artificial intelligence.J. Evol. Econ., 34:1–28, 2024

    2024

  145. [153]

    J. L. Moreno and H. H. Jennings. Statistics of social configurations.Sociometry, 1:342–374, 1938

    1938

  146. [154]

    Morin.Method 1: The Nature of Nature

    E. Morin.Method 1: The Nature of Nature. Peter Lang, New York, 1992

    1992

  147. [155]

    C. Nass, J. Steuer, and E. R. Tauber. Computers are social actors. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, page 72–78, New York, 1994

    1994

  148. [156]

    J. V . Neumann and A. W . Burks.Theory of Self- Reproducing Automata. University of Illinois Press, Ur- bana IL, 1966. Artificially intelligent agents in the social and behavioral sciences HOLME & TSVETKOV A | 17

    1966

  149. [157]

    Newell.Unified Theories of Cognition

    A. Newell.Unified Theories of Cognition. Harvard Uni- versity Press, Cambridge MA, 1990

    1990

  150. [158]

    Newell and H

    A. Newell and H. A. Simon. Computer simulation of human thinking.Science, 134:2011–2017, 1961

    2011

  151. [159]

    N. J. Nilsson.The Quest for Artificial Intelligence: A His- tory of Ideas and Achievements. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009

    2009

  152. [160]

    Nonaka, G

    I. Nonaka, G. von Krogh, and S. Voelpel. Organiza- tional knowledge creation theory: Evolutionary paths and future advances.Organ. Stud., 27(8):1179–1208, 2006

    2006

  153. [161]

    M. J. North and C. M. Macal.Managing Business Com- plexity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007

    2007

  154. [162]

    M. A. Nowak and R. M. May . Evolutionary games and spatial chaos.Nature, 359:826–829, 1982

    1982

  155. [163]

    Noy and W

    S. Noy and W . Zhang. Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science, 381(6654):187–192, 2023

    2023

  156. [164]

    H. T . Odum.Environment, Power and Society. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1971

    1971

  157. [165]

    C. O’Grady . ‘Unethical’ AI research on Reddit under fire.Science, 388:570–571, 2025

    2025

  158. [166]

    O’Neill.Weapons of Math Destruction

    C. O’Neill.Weapons of Math Destruction. Broadway Books, New York, 2016

    2016

  159. [167]

    Estimating the re- producibility of psychological science.Science, 349(6251):aac4716, 2015

    Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the re- producibility of psychological science.Science, 349(6251):aac4716, 2015

    2015

  160. [168]

    S. E. Page.Complex Adaptive Systems. Princeton Uni- versity Press, Princeton NJ, 2007

    2007

  161. [169]

    Pantic, A

    M. Pantic, A. Pentland, A. Nijholt, and T . Huang. Hu- man computing and machine understanding of human behavior: A survey . InProceedings of the 8th interna- tional conference on Multimodal interfaces, pages 239– 248, 2006

    2006

  162. [170]

    J. S. Park, J. O’Brien, C. J. Cai, M. R. Morris, P . Liang, and M. S. Bernstein. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, page 2, New York, 2023. Association for Comput...

    2023

  163. [171]

    Parsons.The Social System

    T . Parsons.The Social System. The Free Press, Glencoe IL, 1951

    1951

  164. [172]

    Pascale, M

    R. Pascale, M. Milleman, and L. Gioja.Surfing the Edge of Chaos. Crown, New York, 2001

    2001

  165. [173]

    Pedreschi, L

    D. Pedreschi, L. Pappalardo, E. Ferragina, R. Baeza- Yates, A.-L. Barabási, F . Dignum, V . Dignum, T . Eliassi- Rad, F . Giannotti, J. Kertész, A. Knott, Y. Ioannidis, P . Lukowicz, A. Passarella, A. S. Pentland, J. Shawe- Taylor, and A. Vespignani. Human-AI coevolution.Artif...

    2025

  166. [174]

    Pfeifer and C

    R. Pfeifer and C. Scheier.Understanding Intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1999

    1999

  167. [175]

    Pias.Cybernetics: The Macy Conferences 1946-1953

    C. Pias.Cybernetics: The Macy Conferences 1946-1953. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2016

    1946

  168. [176]

    Pickard, W

    G. Pickard, W . Pan, I. Rahwan, M. Cebrian, R. Crane, A. Madan, and A. Pentland. Time-critical social mobi- lization.Science, 334(6055):509–512, 2011

    2011

  169. [177]

    Pickering.The Cybernetic Brain

    A. Pickering.The Cybernetic Brain. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2011

    2011

  170. [178]

    X. Qi, Y. Zeng, T . Xie, P .-Y. Chen, R. Jia, P . Mittal, and P . Henderson. Fine-tuning aligned language models compromises safety , even when users do not intend to! Preprint arXiv:2310.03693, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  171. [179]

    Radford, K

    A. Radford, K. Narasimhan, T . Salimans, and I. Sutskever. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. OpenAI Technical Report, 2018

    2018

  172. [180]

    Radford, J

    A. Radford, J. Wu, R. Child, D. Luan, D. Amodei, and I. Sutskever. Language models are unsupervised multi- task learners. Technical report, OpenAI, 2019. OpenAI Technical Report

    2019

  173. [181]

    Rahwan, M

    I. Rahwan, M. Cebrian, N. Obradovich, J. Bongard, J.-F . Bonnefon, C. Breazeal, J. W . Crandall, N. A. Christakis, I. D. Couzin, M. O. Jackson, N. R. Jennings, E. Kamar, I. M. Kloumann, H. Larochelle, D. Lazer, R. McElreath, A. Mislove, D. C. Parkes, A. S. Pentland, M. E. Robe...

    2019

  174. [182]

    Rashevsky .Mathematical Theory of Human Relations

    N. Rashevsky .Mathematical Theory of Human Relations. Principia Press, Bloomington IN, 1947

    1947

  175. [183]

    P . Rendell. Turing universality of the game of life. In A. Adamatzky , editor,Collision-Based Computing, pages 513–541. Springer, London, 2002

    2002

  176. [184]

    P . C. Roberts, editor.Modeling Large Systems. Taylor & Francis, London, 1978

    1978

  177. [185]

    Rosenblatt

    F . Rosenblatt. The perceptron: a probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain. Psychol. Rev., 65:386–408, 1958

    1958

  178. [186]

    Rosenblueth, N

    A. Rosenblueth, N. Wiener, and J. Bigelow. Behavior, purpose and teleology .Philos. Sci., 10:18–24, 1943

    1943

  179. [187]

    Rossi, C

    F . Rossi, C. Bessiere, J. Biswas, R. Brooks, V . Conitzer, T . G. Dietterich, V . Dignum, O. Etzioni, K. D. Forbus, E. Freuder, Y. Gil, H. Hoos, E. Horvitz, S. Kambhampati, H. Kautz, J. Kim, H. Kitano, A. Mackworth, K. Myers, L. D. Raedt, S. Russell, B. Selman, P . Stone, M. ...

    2025

  180. [188]

    P . E. Rossi, G. M. Allenby , and R. McCulloch.Bayesian Statistics and Marketing. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 2005

    2005

  181. [189]

    S. J. Russell and P . Norvig.Artificial Intelligence: A Mod- ern Approach. Prentice Hall, Hoboken NJ, 2020

    2020

  182. [190]

    M. J. Salganik.Bit by Bit: Social Research in the Digital Age. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 2017

    2017

  183. [191]

    M. J. Salganik, P . S. Dodds, and D. J. Watts. Exper- imental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market.Science, 311(5762):854–856, 2006

    2006

  184. [192]

    R. K. Sawyer. Artificial societies: Multiagent systems and the micro-macro link in sociological theory .Sociol. Method. Res., 31(3):325–363, 2003

    2003

  185. [193]

    A. H. Sayed. Adaptation, learning, and optimiza- tion over networks.Found. Trends Mach. Learn., 7(4- 5):311–801, 2014

    2014

  186. [194]

    Schatten

    M. Schatten. Structural couplings of organizational design and organizational engineering. In R. Magal- hàes, editor,Organization Design and Engineering: Co- Artificially intelligent agents in the social and behavioral sciences HOLME & TSVETKOV A | 18 existence, Cooperation or...

    2014

  187. [195]

    T . C. Schelling.Micromotives and Macrobehavior. W . W . Norton & Company , 1978

    1978

  188. [196]

    Schmelzer.The Hegemony of Growth

    M. Schmelzer.The Hegemony of Growth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016

    2016

  189. [197]

    Schmidhuber

    J. Schmidhuber. Annotated history of modern AI and deep learning. Preprint arXiv:2212.11279, 2022

    2022

  190. [198]

    D. T . Schroeder, M. Cha, A. Baronchelli, N. Bostrom, N. A. Christakis, D. Garcia, A. Goldenberg, Y. Kyrychenko, K. Leyton-Brown, N. Lutz, G. Marcus, F . Menczer, G. Pennycook, D. G. Rand, F . Schweitzer, C. Summerfield, A. Tang, J. Van Bavel, S. van der Linden, D. Song, and J...

    2025

  191. [199]

    J. Searle. Minds, brains, and programs.Behav. Brain Sci., 3(3):417–457, 1980

    1980

  192. [200]

    S. Sebo, B. Stoll, B. Scassellati, and M. F . Jung. Robots in groups and teams: A literature review. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 4(CSCW2):176:1– 176:36, 2020

    2020

  193. [201]

    Serapio-García, M

    G. Serapio-García, M. Safdari, C. Crepy , L. Sun, S. Fitz, P . Romero, M. Abdulhai, A. Faust, and M. Matari ´c. Personality traits in large language models. preprint arxiv:2307.00184, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  194. [202]

    Shirado and N

    H. Shirado and N. A. Christakis. Locally noisy au- tonomous agents improve global human coordination in network experiments.Nature, 545:370–374, 2020

    2020

  195. [203]

    Shum, X.-D

    H.-Y. Shum, X.-D. He, and D. Li. From Eliza to Xi- aoIce: challenges and opportunities with social chat- bots.Front. Inform. Technol. Electron. Eng., 19(1):10– 26, 2018

    2018

  196. [204]

    Shumailov, Z

    I. Shumailov, Z. Shumaylov, Y. Zhao, N. Paper- not, R. Anderson, and Y. Gal. AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data.Nature, 631:755–759, 2024

    2024

  197. [205]

    Silver, J

    D. Silver, J. Schrittwieser, K. Simonyan, I. Antonoglou, A. Huang, A. Guez, T . Hubert, L. Baker, M. Lai, A. Bolton, Y. Chen, T . Lillicrap, F . Hui, L. Sifre, G. van den Driessche, T . Graepel, and D. Hassabis. Master- ing the game of go without human knowledge.Nature, 550:35...

    2017

  198. [206]

    H. A. Simon.Administrative Behavior. Macmillan, New York, 1947

    1947

  199. [207]

    H. A. Simon. A behavioral model of rational choice.Q. J. Econ., 69(1):99–118, 1955

    1955

  200. [208]

    H. A. Simon.The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1969

    1969

  201. [209]

    H. A. Simon.Models of My Life. Basic Books, New York, 1991

    1991

  202. [210]

    Simonyan and A

    K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman. Very deep convo- lutional networks for large-scale image recognition. Preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  203. [211]

    Sourati and J

    J. Sourati and J. Evans. Accelerating science with human-aware artificial intelligence.Nat. Hum. Behav., 7:1682–1696, 2023

    2023

  204. [212]

    C. Sun, A. Shrivastava, S. Singh, and A. Gupta. Revisit- ing unreasonable effectiveness of data in deep learning era. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 843–852, 2017

    2017

  205. [213]

    R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto.Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 2 edition, 2014

    2014

  206. [214]

    Szegedy , W

    C. Szegedy , W . Liu, Y. Jia, P . Sermanet, S. Reed, D. Anguelov, D. Erhan, V . Vanhoucke, and A. Rabi- novich. Going deeper with convolutions. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1–9, 2015

    2015

  207. [215]

    J. C. Tang, M. Cebrian, N. A. Giacobe, H. W . Kim, T . Kim, and D. B. Wickert. Reflecting on the DARPA red balloon challenge.Commun. ACM, 54(4):78–85, 2011

    2011

  208. [216]

    Y. Tao, O. Viberg, R. S. Baker, and R. F . Kizilcec. Cultural bias and cultural alignment of large language models. PNAS Nexus, 3(9):pgae346, 2024

    2024

  209. [217]

    E. L. Thorndike.Animal Intelligence. Macmillan, New York, 1911

    1911

  210. [218]

    Törnberg

    P . Törnberg. How to use LLMs for text analysis. Preprint arXiv:2307.13106, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  211. [219]

    Toulmin.Foresight and Understanding

    S. Toulmin.Foresight and Understanding. Harper & Row, New York, 1963

    1963

  212. [220]

    K. E. Train.Discrete Choice Methods with Simula- tion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2 edi- tion, 2009

    2009

  213. [221]

    Travers and S

    J. Travers and S. Milgram. An experimental study of the small world problem.Sociometry, 32(4):425–443, 1969

    1969

  214. [222]

    Tsvetkova, T

    M. Tsvetkova, T . Yasseri, E. T . Meyer, J. B. Pick- ering, V . Engen, P . Walland, M. Lüders, A. Følstad, and G. Bravos. Understanding human-machine net- works: A cross-disciplinary survey .ACM Comput. Surv., 50(1):12, 2017

    2017

  215. [223]

    Tsvetkova, T

    M. Tsvetkova, T . Yasseri, N. Pescetelli, and T . Werner. A new sociology of humans and machines.Nat. Hum. Behav., 8:1864–1876, 2024

    2024

  216. [224]

    A. M. Turing. Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59:433–460, 1950

    1950

  217. [225]

    Vaccaro, A

    M. Vaccaro, A. Almaatouq, and T . Malone. When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A sys- tematic review and meta-analysis.Nat. Hum. Behav., 8(12):2293–2303, 2024

    2024

  218. [226]

    F . J. Varela, E. Thompson, and E. Rosch.The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1991

    1991

  219. [227]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin. At- tention is all you need. InAdvances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, volume 30, pages 5998–6008, 2017

    2017

  220. [229]

    M. M. Waldrop.Complexity. Simon & Schuster, New York, 1992

    1992

  221. [230]

    H. Wallach. Computational social science̸=computer science+social data.Commun. ACM, 61(3):42–44, 2018

    2018

  222. [231]

    H. Wang, T . Fu, Y. Du, W . Gao, K. Huang, Z. Liu, P . Chan- dak, S. Liu, P . V . Katwyk, A. Deac, A. Anandkumar, K. Bergen, C. P . Gomes, S. Ho, P . Kohli, J. Lasenby , J. Leskovec, T .-Y. Liu, A. Manrai, D. Marks, B. Ramsun- Artificially intelligent agents in the social and ...

    2023

  223. [232]

    M. D. Ward, B. D. Greenhill, and K. M. Bakke. The perils of policy by p-value: Predicting civil conflicts.J. Peace Res., 47(4):363–375, 2010

    2010

  224. [233]

    Wasserman and K

    S. Wasserman and K. Faust.Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994

    1994

  225. [234]

    D. J. Watts. A twenty-first century science.Nature, 445:489, 2007

    2007

  226. [235]

    D. J. Watts. Should social science be more solution- oriented?Nat. Hum. Behav., 1(1):15, 2017

    2017

  227. [236]

    Weizenbaum.Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation

    J. Weizenbaum.Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation. W . H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1976

    1976

  228. [237]

    Wiener.The Human Use of Human Beings

    N. Wiener.The Human Use of Human Beings. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1950

    1950

  229. [238]

    M. Wilson. Six views of embodied cognition.Psychon. Bull. Rev., 9:625–636, 2002

    2002

  230. [239]

    Wolfers and E

    J. Wolfers and E. Zitzewitz. Prediction markets.J. Econ. Perspect., 18(2):107–126, 2004

    2004

  231. [240]

    Wuttke, M

    A. Wuttke, M. Assenmacher, C. Klamm, M. M. Lang, Q. Würschinger, and F . Kreuter. AI conversational inter- viewing: Transforming surveys with LLMs as adaptive interviewers. Preprint arXiv:2410.01824, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  232. [241]

    Yakura, E

    H. Yakura, E. Lopez-Lopez, L. Brinkmann, I. Serna, P . Gupta, and I. Rahwan. Empirical evidence of Large Language Model’s influence on human spoken commu- nication. preprint arxiv:2409.01754, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  233. [242]

    Ylikoski

    P . Ylikoski. Understanding the Coleman boat. In G. Manzo, editor,Research Handbook on Analytical So- ciology, pages 49–63. Edward Elgar Publishing, Chel- tenham, 2021

    2021

  234. [243]

    Zelditch and W

    M. Zelditch and W . M. Evan. Simulated bureaucra- cies: A methodological analysis. In H. Guetzkow, ed- itor,Simulation in Social Science: Readings, pages 48–

  235. [244]

    Zenil, J

    H. Zenil, J. Tegnér, F . S. Abrahão, A. Lavin, V . Ku- mar, J. G. Frey , A. Weller, L. Soldatova, A. R. Bundy , N. R. Jennings, K. Takahashi, L. Hunter, S. Dzeroski, A. Briggs, F . D. Gregory , C. P . Gomes, J. Rowe, J. Evans, H. Kitano, and R. King. The future of fundamental ...

    2023 arXiv

  236. [245]

    Zhang, X

    T . Zhang, X. Zhang, R. Cools, and A. Simeone. Focus agent: LLM-powered virtual focus group. InProceed- ings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Intel- ligent Virtual Agents, IVA ’24, page 10, New York, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery

    2024

  237. [246]

    Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ, 1962

    1962

  238. [247]

    S. T . Ziliak and D. N. McCloskey .The Cult of Statistical Significance. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 2008

    2008

  239. [249]

    Ziems, W

    C. Ziems, W . Held, O. Shaikh, J. Chen, Z. Zhang, and D. Yang. Can large language models transform com- putational social science? Preprint arXiv:2305.03514, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  240. [288]

    Springer, Berlin, 2009

    2009

  241. [840]

    Addison-Wesley , Redwood City CA, 1992

    1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.