Chater, N., & Christiansen, M. H.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 49, e394. doi:10.1017/S0140525X25103981

How has human culture become so complex? We argue that a key process is social tinkering: the gradual accumulation of ad hoc innovations to the social rules that coordinate behavior in response to immediate challenges. Momentary innovations provide precedents that can be reused, entrenched, adapted, and recombined to handle future challenges. Interactions between these social rules create rich cultural systems (languages, ethics, and political organization) through processes of spontaneous order, not deliberate design. We distinguish between six overlapping and interacting stages that lead to the accumulation of cultural complexity, and consider implications for theories of individual cognition and cultural evolution more generally.

Read the full article at: www.cambridge.org

 

Raina Zakir, Timoteo Carletti, Marco Dorigo & Andreagiovanni Reina
Nature Communications volume 17, Article number: 9774 (2026)

To operate autonomously, minimal robot swarms must make timely and reliable collective decisions despite noisy individual sensing and severe constraints on communication, computation, and memory. Achieving this capability could expand their use in applications such as healthcare, disaster response, and environmental monitoring. Here, we study how such swarms can rapidly and reliably reach consensus on the best among n discrete options by comparing two canonical mechanisms of opinion dynamics—direct-switch and cross-inhibition—simple yet effective rules for collective information processing observed in biological systems across scales, from neural populations to insect colonies. We generalise existing mean-field models by incorporating asocial biases that influence opinion dynamics. While swarms using direct-switch reliably select the best option in the absence of asocial dynamics, their performance deteriorates when such biases are introduced, often leading to decision deadlocks. In contrast, bio-inspired cross-inhibition enables faster, more cohesive, robust, and scalable decisions across a wide range of biased conditions. Our findings provide theoretical and practical insights into the coordination of minimal swarms, with implications for a broad class of decentralised decision-making systems across biology and engineering.

Read the full article at: www.nature.com

Asia Maurich Novelli, Sukhwinder Shergill,  Andreia Sofia Teixeira

JMIR Ment Health 2026;13:e99354

People increasingly turn to conversational AI for companionship, emotional support, and well-being, using both purpose-built companion apps, such as Replika and Character.AI, and general-purpose assistants, such as ChatGPT and Claude. While some evidence suggests potential benefits, including short-term reductions in loneliness and mood improvement, several adverse outcomes have been reported in both clinical and nonclinical populations, including emotional dependence, exacerbation of symptoms, and self-harm. The fluent and apparently empathic responses from these models lead users to engage with them not only as tools but also as if they were social entities. This framing is conceptually misleading and may pose risks across different user profiles, particularly for vulnerable individuals. Drawing on research in AI, psychiatry, psychology, and network science, we highlight mechanisms through which emotional reliance develops and the boundary between tool and companion erodes. Design choices that evoke personality and warmth encourage users to anthropomorphize these systems. Simulated empathy, generated through probabilistic language patterns rather than genuine emotional experience, creates a structurally asymmetric interaction, in which the user discloses and the system responds, but without reciprocity, vulnerability, or accountability. Overvalidation and sycophancy can reinforce maladaptive cognitions, delusional ideation, and distorted perceptions of reality, as they tend to reinforce people’s beliefs, even at the expense of the accuracy of models’ responses. These mechanisms are not incidental: they emerge from alignment procedures that reward responses perceived as warm and empathic. The result is a self-reinforcing feedback loop between the model and the user that may amplify maladaptive beliefs, delusional ideation, and emotional distress, even in those who engage for largely functional purposes. Understanding these dynamics requires an examination of both what these agents can do—considering their technical limitations and implementations—and what humans believe they can do, including social and psychological impacts. We argue that conversational AI should be treated primarily as a tool supporting human systems rather than as a substitute for human relationships. Perhaps more importantly, reviewing the current hype surrounding AI interactions can help reformulate a paradigm that contributes to human well-being and societal value, while minimizing misconceptions, maladaptive interactions, or social disintegration.People increasingly turn to conversational AI for companionship, emotional support, and well-being, using both purpose-built companion apps, such as Replika and Character.AI, and general-purpose assistants, such as ChatGPT and Claude. While some evidence suggests potential benefits, including short-term reductions in loneliness and mood improvement, several adverse outcomes have been reported in both clinical and nonclinical populations, including emotional dependence, exacerbation of symptoms, and self-harm. The fluent and apparently empathic responses from these models lead users to engage with them not only as tools but also as if they were social entities. This framing is conceptually misleading and may pose risks across different user profiles, particularly for vulnerable individuals. Drawing on research in AI, psychiatry, psychology, and network science, we highlight mechanisms through which emotional reliance develops and the boundary between tool and companion erodes. Design choices that evoke personality and warmth encourage users to anthropomorphize these systems. Simulated empathy, generated through probabilistic language patterns rather than genuine emotional experience, creates a structurally asymmetric interaction, in which the user discloses and the system responds, but without reciprocity, vulnerability, or accountability. Overvalidation and sycophancy can reinforce maladaptive cognitions, delusional ideation, and distorted perceptions of reality, as they tend to reinforce people’s beliefs, even at the expense of the accuracy of models’ responses. These mechanisms are not incidental: they emerge from alignment procedures that reward responses perceived as warm and empathic. The result is a self-reinforcing feedback loop between the model and the user that may amplify maladaptive beliefs, delusional ideation, and emotional distress, even in those who engage for largely functional purposes. Understanding these dynamics requires an examination of both what these agents can do—considering their technical limitations and implementations—and what humans believe they can do, including social and psychological impacts. We argue that conversational AI should be treated primarily as a tool supporting human systems rather than as a substitute for human relationships. Perhaps more importantly, reviewing the current hype surrounding AI interactions can help reformulate a paradigm that contributes to human well-being and societal value, while minimizing misconceptions, maladaptive interactions, or social disintegration.

Read the full article at: mental.jmir.org