Artificial Theory of Mind and Self-Guided Social Organisation

Catherine Drysdale; Jaime Ruiz-Serra; Michael S. Harr\'e

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Artificial Theory of Mind and Self-Guided Social Organisation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that artificial agents will need a socially embodied cognitive toolbox—language, Theory of Mind, and collective causal understanding—to coordinate toward goals no single agent can reach.

desk verdict A fresh framing of collective AI as socially embodied agents, but a position paper with no mechanism; worth engaging for its agenda, not for results. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09169 v1 pith:OBGH6SJ2 submitted 2024-11-14 cs.MA cs.AIcs.CYcs.HCnlin.AO

Michael S. Harré , Jaime Ruiz-Serra , Catherine Drysdale This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.MAcs.AIcs.CYcs.HCnlin.AO

keywords collectiveintelligencetheoryofmindmulti-agentsystemssocialnetworkrewiringlanguageandcognitionnicheconstructioncausalAI-AIcoordination

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

This extended abstract argues that the open problem in multi-agent AI—how a collection of agents coordinates toward goals no single agent can reach—will require machines with a human-style cognitive toolbox: language, Theory of Mind, and a shared causal understanding of social relationships. The paper moves the grand-challenge framing from the human-AI interface to the AI-AI interface, where agents must also read, interpret, and rewire the connections between themselves and others. It builds its case with analogies: single neurons and ant colonies both adjust connectivity for collective benefit, and ecological niche processes such as niche choice, conformance, and construction map onto how newcomers integrate into human social networks. It then reviews evidence that individuals with stronger Theory of Mind improve group performance and that people encode the topology of their social group, giving them a collective causal model. The upshot is a research agenda: artificial agents should be socially embodied, capable of articulating collective goals and actively restructuring their own social networks.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is an analogy plus a cognitive toolbox. The analogy maps the ecological processes of niche choice, niche conformance, and niche construction onto social network development: when a new agent joins, the group and the newcomer selectively adjust their relationships to accommodate or reject the newcomer, rather than wiring in by random or rich-get-richer attachment. The toolbox that makes this possible at behavioral timescales is language (with complement grammar that can represent false belief), Theory of Mind (the ability to mentally represent another agent's internal states), and a shared causal model of the social network's topology. The paper also invokes a formal result that self-interested agents which can modify which other agents affect them will adapt their relationships in a way homologous to Hebbian learning, giving the rewiring idea a computational precedent.

What would settle it

A concrete test would be a multi-agent benchmark in which teams must infer hidden goals, decide who should communicate with whom, and rewire the interaction network to reach a novel joint objective. If a team of agents with no Theory of Mind module, no shared causal model of the group, and no language-like communication matches or beats a team equipped with those tools, the claim that this cognitive toolbox is needed for collective AI coordination would be undercut. So would evidence that simple random or rich-get-richer attachment rules produce optimal newcomer integration in such tasks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that language, a shared collective understanding of social causal relationships, and Theory of Mind are part of a highly integrated cognitive toolbox that humans use to understand how they fit together and coordinate toward collective goals, and that artificial agents will need an analogous socially embodied capability to guide their own social structures. The intended object is not a smarter single agent but a collective whose members can infer each other's mental states, share a causal model of the group's topology, and deliberately change who interacts with whom. The paper treats this as an extension of the human-centered AI agenda to the AI-AI frontier, and it frames the human case as the only successful template available. It does not claim such a system exists; it claims that this is the direction collective AI must take, and it offers converging evidence from neural, ecological, and social-cognitive research as supporting reasons.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that human psychology, especially Theory of Mind and language, is the right template for how artificial agents should coordinate; if human-like social cognition turns out to be unnecessary for AI-AI coordination, or the ecological analogy does not transfer to software agents, the research agenda loses its foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

AI coordination research should put Theory of Mind, shared causal models, and language-like communication at the center of agent design, not only at the human-AI boundary.
Multi-agent AI systems should be built with the ability to read, interpret, and rewrite their own social connections in service of a stated collective goal.
Benchmarks for collective intelligence should include tasks that require inferring group structure and adjusting network relationships, because individual competence alone is not enough.
Systems of self-interested agents that can modify their interaction partners should exhibit system-level behavior homologous to Hebbian learning, a formal precedent that adaptive rewiring is computationally available.
Since collective goals are psychological constructs of individuals, any human-AI collective will need mechanisms for representing and aligning those constructs.

Reading between the lines

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

An implication the paper leaves implicit is that current LLM-based agents should hit a ceiling on collective reconfiguration tasks: even if they pass individual Theory of Mind tests, their lack of social embodiment and shared causal models should block them from manipulating group structure.
The niche analogy yields a testable prediction the paper does not run: in agent simulations, newcomers integrated through mutual adjustment (conformance and construction) should outperform those attached by random or preferential-attachment rules when the group must reorganize around a new goal.
If the Hebbian-rewiring result transfers, explicit Theory of Mind may change the speed and stability of social learning rather than the final outcome; a useful extension would be to compare convergence rates with and without ToM modules.
The caution the paper cites about rich psychological terms suggests a weaker defensible version of the claim: what AI needs may be functional analogues of Theory of Mind, not human-like inner experience.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Candid: this is a position paper, not a research result. What's actually new is the niche-choice/conformance/construction analogy mapped onto AI social integration, and the explicit argument that future artificial agents will need to read, interpret, and re-write inter-agent connections, not just infer rewards. The paper compiles a decent evidence base from psychology (de Villiers; Milligan; Woolley) and network neuroscience (Momennejad) to support the claim that ToM, language, and causal models form an integrated toolbox in humans. It also ends with a useful caution from Shevlin and Halina about slapping rich psychological terms on AI.

Where it's soft: the central premise—human psychology as "the only successful framework"—is asserted, not argued. That's a rhetorical hook, and the stress-test concern is fair: alternative coordination mechanisms (explicit communication, shared ontologies, swarm heuristics) might not need ToM, and the paper doesn't engage with that literature. The ecological analogy is also loose; software agents are copyable and reprogrammable, so niche dynamics don't transfer automatically. But I wouldn't call these fatal flaws, because the paper is transparently an extended abstract for a talk, not a proof or a model. It explicitly frames its claims as a research agenda.

What the paper doesn't do: it doesn't offer a mechanism, a formal model, or any falsifiable prediction. If you're looking for a technical result, this isn't it. If you're looking for a well-read synthesis that names an important gap—no LLM today is socially embodied in a communication network where it can manipulate network structure to achieve collective goals—then it's worth a read.

My take: the soundness score should be judged against the genre. As a proposal, it's coherent and honest. The citation pattern looks fine, with self-citation limited to [26] where it's directly relevant. I'd send this to a workshop or a venue that accepts position papers; a serious referee would ask for a sharper discussion of alternative mechanisms and a more explicit research plan, but the paper deserves that conversation rather than a desk rejection.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This extended abstract argues that AI systems coordinating to achieve collective goals should be built on an 'integrated cognitive toolbox' analogous to the human combination of language, shared causal models of social relationships, and Theory of Mind (ToM). The paper draws parallels among biological networks (neurons, ant colonies), ecological niche processes, and human social networks, and it concludes that artificial agents need to be socially embodied so they can read, interpret, and rewrite their own inter-agent connections. The current state of AI is reviewed briefly, with inverse reinforcement learning and large language models discussed as partial but insufficient steps toward this vision. The manuscript is a position piece rather than a technical contribution, and it contains no equations, experiments, or formal models.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, it would redirect AI coordination research toward equipping agents with ToM, shared causal models, and network-rewiring abilities, and it would motivate a specific research agenda for 'socially embodied collective artificial intelligence.' The paper usefully synthesizes a broad set of references on ToM, language, collective intelligence, and inverse reinforcement learning, and it ends with an appropriate caution against applying rich psychological terms to AI uncritically. However, the significance is currently limited because the proposal is not operationalized: there are no falsifiable predictions, no concrete mechanism, and no benchmark that would test whether human-like ToM is necessary for collective intelligence in artificial systems.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] The central premise that human psychology is 'the only successful framework we have from which to build out' is asserted rather than argued. The cited human studies (e.g., references [19], [20], [22], and [24]) establish correlations between language, ToM, and group performance, but they do not establish that human-like ToM is necessary for collective intelligence, nor do they rule out alternative coordination mechanisms such as explicit communication protocols or swarm heuristics. Since the entire agenda rests on this premise, it should either be weakened to a working hypothesis or supported by an argument showing why alternative frameworks are insufficient.
[Main text, paragraph 2] The mapping from ecological niche processes to human and AI social network integration is presented as a direct analogy: 'as new people join a social group and just as new species form niches, rather than integrating a new person based on mechanisms such as random connectivity or rich-get-richer processes, a dynamic integration occurs.' This is the central mechanism proposed by the paper, but no evidence is given that niche choice, conformance, and construction transfer to the social domain. The analogy is particularly strained for software agents, which are copyable and reprogrammable, so the paper should justify the transfer or explicitly frame the ecological analogy as a conjecture that requires empirical testing.
[Main text, paragraph 6] The paper asserts that no LLM has demonstrated 'the complete suite' of cognitive skills and that socially embodied AI is missing, but it offers no concrete mechanism, formal model, or evaluation protocol for the proposed 'socially embodied collective artificial intelligence.' Without a testable specification, such as what observable behaviors would count as reading, interpreting, and rewriting social connections, the central claim that artificial agents need ToM and shared causal models remains underdetermined. The paper needs at least one falsifiable prediction or benchmark that could distinguish the proposed approach from alternatives.

minor comments (5)

[Main text, paragraph 3] The phrase 'this was inverted again' is unclear: Darwin's inversion is an explanatory principle about natural selection, while the human capacity to purposefully manipulate social constructs is a different kind of claim. Please clarify the intended logical relation between these two ideas.
[Main text, paragraph 6] Reference [29], citing Haidle, is used to support the claim that 'even early humans could do' socially embodied reasoning, but the cited article appears to be about working memory and tool use. Please verify that this citation supports the statement or replace it.
[Manuscript source] The arXiv source includes a figure file 'frog.jpg' that is never referenced in the text. Either integrate the figure into the argument or remove the file.
[Final paragraph] The sentence 'in our talk at GSO-2025 we will cover...' makes the manuscript read as a workshop extended abstract rather than a self-contained journal article; if this is intended for archival publication, this sentence should be revised.
[Main text, paragraph 1] The term 'liquid brains' is used without definition; a one-sentence explanation would help readers not already familiar with the 'Liquid brains, solid brains' concept referenced in [11].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an argumentative research agenda whose central claim draws on external empirical evidence, and its only self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper is an extended abstract that argues for a research agenda rather than deriving a quantitative result, so there is no equation-level input-output reduction to examine. Its central claim that language, shared causal understanding, and Theory of Mind form an integrated cognitive toolbox is supported by independent empirical studies (e.g., de Villiers; Milligan et al.; Momennejad; Woolley et al.) rather than by the paper's own prior results. The only self-citation, [26] Ruiz-Serra and Harré, appears in a passing remark that inverse reinforcement learning has been suggested as a model for Theory of Mind in AI; this is background context and is not load-bearing for the proposal. The premise that human psychology is 'the only successful framework we have from which to build out' is an explicitly stated assumption, not a conclusion smuggled in from a citation. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' own work, and no known result is merely renamed. The ecological niche analogy is presented as an analogy to motivate dynamic integration, with the limitation that it is not tested, but that is a weakness of evidence, not circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained in the sense that its conclusions are interpretations of cited external evidence plus an openly acknowledged starting premise.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. Its central claim rests on several domain assumptions about human psychology, the ecological analogy, and the role of ToM in causal cognition, all taken from cited literature without derivation.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Human psychology is the only successful framework from which to build collective AI.
Stated in the abstract and opening paragraph; no comparative evidence for alternative frameworks is provided.
ad hoc to paper Ecological niche processes (choice, conformance, construction) provide a valid analogy for human and AI social network integration.
The paper transfers niche dynamics from ecology to social networks in paragraph 4 without formal justification.
domain assumption Theory of Mind is a crucial component of causal cognition in social groups.
Adopted from Lombard and Gardenfors [21]; the paper treats this as a premise for the AI agenda.
domain assumption Language complement structures are required for representing others' mental states and false beliefs.
Cited from de Villiers and developmental literature; not derived in the paper.
domain assumption Inverse reinforcement learning can serve as an algorithmic model of Theory of Mind.
Cites [25, 26], including the authors' own prior work, as a basis for AI ToM.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Artificial Theory of Mind and Self-Guided Social Organisation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OBGH6SJ2

@misc{pith2026241109169,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Artificial Theory of Mind and Self-Guided Social Organisation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OBGH6SJ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09169}
}

read the original abstract

One of the challenges artificial intelligence (AI) faces is how a collection of agents coordinate their behaviour to achieve goals that are not reachable by any single agent. In a recent article by Ozmen et al this was framed as one of six grand challenges: That AI needs to respect human cognitive processes at the human-AI interaction frontier. We suggest that this extends to the AI-AI frontier and that it should also reflect human psychology, as it is the only successful framework we have from which to build out. In this extended abstract we first make the case for collective intelligence in a general setting, drawing on recent work from single neuron complexity in neural networks and ant network adaptability in ant colonies. From there we introduce how species relate to one another in an ecological network via niche selection, niche choice, and niche conformity with the aim of forming an analogy with human social network development as new agents join together and coordinate. From there we show how our social structures are influenced by our neuro-physiology, our psychology, and our language. This emphasises how individual people within a social network influence the structure and performance of that network in complex tasks, and that cognitive faculties such as Theory of Mind play a central role. We finish by discussing the current state of the art in AI and where there is potential for further development of a socially embodied collective artificial intelligence that is capable of guiding its own social structures.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[26]

Inverse reinforcemen t learning as the algorithmic basis for theory of mind: current methods and open problems

Jaime Ruiz-Serra and Michael S Harr´ e. Inverse reinforcemen t learning as the algorithmic basis for theory of mind: current methods and open problems. Algorithms, 16(2):68, 2023

work page 2023
[19]

The role (s) of language in theory of mind

Jill G de Villiers. The role (s) of language in theory of mind. In The neural basis of mentalizing , pages 423–448. Springer, 2021

work page 2021
[20]

Language and theory of mind: Meta-analysis of the relation between language ability and false-belief understanding

Karen Milligan, Janet Wilde Astington, and Lisa Ain Dack. Language and theory of mind: Meta-analysis of the relation between language ability and false-belief understanding. Child development , 78(2):622–646, 2007

work page 2007
[22]

Collective minds: social network topology sha pes collective cognition

Ida Momennejad. Collective minds: social network topology sha pes collective cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B , 377(1843):20200315, 2022. 3

work page 2022
[24]

Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human grou ps

Anita Williams Woolley, Christopher F Chabris, Alex Pentland, Nada H ashmi, and Thomas W Malone. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human grou ps. science, 330(6004):686–688, 2010

work page 2010
[1]

An introduction to collective inte lligence

David H Wolpert and Kagan Tumer. An introduction to collective inte lligence. arXiv preprint cs/9908014 , 1999

arXiv 1999
[2]

Bioelectric networks: the cognitive glue enabling ev olutionary scaling from physiology to mind

Michael Levin. Bioelectric networks: the cognitive glue enabling ev olutionary scaling from physiology to mind. Animal Cognition, 26(6):1865–1891, 2023

work page 2023
[3]

Six human-centered artiﬁcial intelli- gence grand challenges

Ozlem Ozmen Garibay, Brent Winslow, Salvatore Andolina, Margher ita Antona, Anja Bodenschatz, Constantinos Coursaris, Gregory Falco, Stephen M Fiore, Ivan Garibay, Keri Gr ieman, et al. Six human-centered artiﬁcial intelli- gence grand challenges. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction , 39(3):391–437, 2023

work page 2023

Show all 31 references

[4]

The computational boundary of a “self”: develop mental bioelectricity drives multicellularity and scale-free cognition

Michael Levin. The computational boundary of a “self”: develop mental bioelectricity drives multicellularity and scale-free cognition. Frontiers in psychology , 10:2688, 2019

2019
[5]

Technological approach to mind everywhere: an e xperimentally-grounded framework for understanding diverse bodies and minds

Michael Levin. Technological approach to mind everywhere: an e xperimentally-grounded framework for understanding diverse bodies and minds. Frontiers in systems neuroscience , 16:768201, 2022

2022
[6]

Single cortica l neurons as deep artiﬁcial neural networks

David Beniaguev, Idan Segev, and Michael London. Single cortica l neurons as deep artiﬁcial neural networks. Neuron, 109(17):2727–2739, 2021

2021
[7]

Ant social network structure is highly conserved across species

Tomas Kay, Alba Motes-Rodrigo, Arthur Royston, Thomas O Rich ardson, Nathalie Stroeymeyt, and Laurent Keller. Ant social network structure is highly conserved across species. Proceedings B, 291(2027):20240898, 2024

2027
[8]

Leadership–not followership– determines performance in ant teams

Thomas O Richardson, Andrea Coti, Nathalie Stroeymeyt, and La urent Keller. Leadership–not followership– determines performance in ant teams. Communications biology, 4(1):535, 2021

2021
[9]

Infectious diseases and social distancing in nature

Sebastian Stockmaier, Nathalie Stroeymeyt, Eric C Shattuck, D ana M Hawley, Lauren Ancel Meyers, and Daniel I Bolnick. Infectious diseases and social distancing in nature. Science, 371(6533):eabc8881, 2021

2021
[10]

Architectural immunity: ants alter their nest networks to prevent epidemics

Luke Leckie, Mischa Sinha Andon, Katherine Bruce, and Nathalie Stroeymeyt. Architectural immunity: ants alter their nest networks to prevent epidemics. bioRxiv, pages 2024–08, 2024

2024
[11]

Liquid bra ins, solid brains, 2019

Ricard Sol´ e, Melanie Moses, and Stephanie Forrest. Liquid bra ins, solid brains, 2019

2019
[12]

The power of infochemicals in mediating individualized niches

Caroline M¨ uller, Barbara A Caspers, J¨ urgen Gadau, and Sylvia Kaiser. The power of infochemicals in mediating individualized niches. Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 35(11):981–989, 2020

2020
[13]

Niche construction aﬀects the variability and strength of natural selection

Andrew D Clark, Dominik Deﬀner, Kevin Laland, John Odling-Smee, and John Endler. Niche construction aﬀects the variability and strength of natural selection. The American Naturalist , 195(1):16–30, 2020

2020
[14]

strange inversion of reasoning

Daniel Dennett. Darwin’s “strange inversion of reasoning”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 106(sup- plement 1):10061–10065, 2009

2009
[15]

The Darwinian theory of the transmutation of species

Robert Mackenzie Beverley. The Darwinian theory of the transmutation of species . J. Nisbet, 1867
[16]

The collective intelligence of ev olution and development

Richard Watson and Michael Levin. The collective intelligence of ev olution and development. Collective Intelligence , 2(2):26339137231168355, 2023

2023
[17]

The social brain: allowing humans to bold ly go where no other species has been

Uta Frith and Chris Frith. The social brain: allowing humans to bold ly go where no other species has been. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biologi cal Sciences, 365(1537):165–176, 2010

2010
[18]

Early language development and the emergence of a theory of mind

M Jeﬀrey Farrar and Lisa Maag. Early language development and the emergence of a theory of mind. First language , 22(2):197–213, 2002

2002
[21]

Causal cognition and theory of mind in evolutionary cognitive archaeology

Marlize Lombard and Peter G¨ ardenfors. Causal cognition and theory of mind in evolutionary cognitive archaeology. Biological Theory, 18(4):234–252, 2023

2023
[23]

Discovering social groups via latent structure learning

Tatiana Lau, Hillard T Pouncy, Samuel J Gershman, and Mina Cikar a. Discovering social groups via latent structure learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 147(12):1881, 2018

2018
[25]

Theory of mind as inverse reinforcement learning

Julian Jara-Ettinger. Theory of mind as inverse reinforcement learning. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences , 29:105–110, 2019

2019
[27]

Testing theo ry of mind in large language models and humans

James W A Strachan, Dalila Albergo, Giulia Borghini, Oriana Pansard i, Eugenio Scaliti, Saurabh Gupta, Krati Saxena, Alessandro Rufo, Stefano Panzeri, Guido Manzi, et al. Testing theo ry of mind in large language models and humans. Nature Human Behaviour , pages 1–11, 2024

2024
[28]

Cau sal reasoning and large language models: Opening a new frontier for causality

Emre Kıcıman, Robert Ness, Amit Sharma, and Chenhao Tan. Cau sal reasoning and large language models: Opening a new frontier for causality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.00050 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[29]

Working-memory capacity and the evolution o f modern cognitive potential: implications from animal and early human tool use

Miriam No¨ el Haidle. Working-memory capacity and the evolution o f modern cognitive potential: implications from animal and early human tool use. Current anthropology, 51(S1):S149–S166, 2010

2010
[30]

Global ad aptation in networks of selﬁsh components: Emergent associative memory at the system scale

Richard A Watson, Rob Mills, and Christopher L Buckley. Global ad aptation in networks of selﬁsh components: Emergent associative memory at the system scale. Artiﬁcial Life , 17(3):147–166, 2011

2011
[31]

frog.jpg

Henry Shevlin and Marta Halina. Apply rich psychological terms in a i with care. Nature Machine Intelligence , 1(4):165–167, 2019. 4 This figure "frog.jpg" is available in "jpg" format from: http://arxiv.org/ps/2411.09169v1

2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [26]

Inverse reinforcemen t learning as the algorithmic basis for theory of mind: current methods and open problems

Jaime Ruiz-Serra and Michael S Harr´ e. Inverse reinforcemen t learning as the algorithmic basis for theory of mind: current methods and open problems. Algorithms, 16(2):68, 2023

work page 2023

[2] [19]

The role (s) of language in theory of mind

Jill G de Villiers. The role (s) of language in theory of mind. In The neural basis of mentalizing , pages 423–448. Springer, 2021

work page 2021

[3] [20]

Language and theory of mind: Meta-analysis of the relation between language ability and false-belief understanding

Karen Milligan, Janet Wilde Astington, and Lisa Ain Dack. Language and theory of mind: Meta-analysis of the relation between language ability and false-belief understanding. Child development , 78(2):622–646, 2007

work page 2007

[4] [22]

Collective minds: social network topology sha pes collective cognition

Ida Momennejad. Collective minds: social network topology sha pes collective cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B , 377(1843):20200315, 2022. 3

work page 2022

[5] [24]

Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human grou ps

Anita Williams Woolley, Christopher F Chabris, Alex Pentland, Nada H ashmi, and Thomas W Malone. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human grou ps. science, 330(6004):686–688, 2010

work page 2010

[6] [1]

An introduction to collective inte lligence

David H Wolpert and Kagan Tumer. An introduction to collective inte lligence. arXiv preprint cs/9908014 , 1999

arXiv 1999

[7] [2]

Bioelectric networks: the cognitive glue enabling ev olutionary scaling from physiology to mind

Michael Levin. Bioelectric networks: the cognitive glue enabling ev olutionary scaling from physiology to mind. Animal Cognition, 26(6):1865–1891, 2023

work page 2023

[8] [3]

Six human-centered artiﬁcial intelli- gence grand challenges

Ozlem Ozmen Garibay, Brent Winslow, Salvatore Andolina, Margher ita Antona, Anja Bodenschatz, Constantinos Coursaris, Gregory Falco, Stephen M Fiore, Ivan Garibay, Keri Gr ieman, et al. Six human-centered artiﬁcial intelli- gence grand challenges. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction , 39(3):391–437, 2023

work page 2023