Creativity is a fundamental skill of human cognition. We use textual forma mentis networks (TFMN) to extract network (semantic/syntactic associations) and emotional features from approximately one thousand human-and GPT3.5-generated stories. Using Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) we test whether features relative to Mednick's associative theory of creativity can explain creativity ratings assigned by humans and GPT-3.5. Using XGBoost, we examine 3 scenarios: (i) human ratings of human stories, (ii) GPT-3.5 ratings of human stories, and (iii) GPT-3.5 ratings of GPT-generated stories. Our findings reveal that GPT-3.5 ratings differ significantly from human ratings not only in terms of correlations but also because of feature patterns identified with XAI methods. GPT-3.5 favours "its own" stories and rates human stories differently from humans. Feature importance analysis with SHAP scores shows that: (i) network features are more predictive for human creativity ratings but also for GPT-3.5 s ratings of human stories; (ii) emotional features played a greater role than semantic/syntactic network structure in GPT-3.5 rating its own stories. These quantitative results underscore key limitations in GPT-3.5 s ability to align with human assessments of creativity. We emphasise the need for caution when using GPT-3.5 to assess and generate creative content, as it does not yet capture the nuanced complexity that characterises human creativity.

Recommendation systems and assistants (from now on, recommenders) - algorithms suggesting items or providing solutions based on users' preferences or requests [99, 105, 141, 166] - influence through online platforms most actions of our day to day life. For example, recommendations on social media suggest new social connections, those on online retail platforms guide users' product choices, navigation services offer routes to desired destinations, and generative AI platforms produce content based on users' requests. Unlike other AI tools, such as medical diagnostic support systems, robotic vision systems, or autonomous driving, which assist in specific tasks or functions, recommenders are ubiquitous in online platforms, shaping our decisions and interactions instantly and profoundly. The influence recommenders exert on users' behaviour may generate long-lasting and often unintended effects on human-AI ecosystems [131], such as amplifying political radicalisation processes [82], increasing CO2 emissions in the environment [36] and amplifying inequality, biases and discriminations [120]. The interaction between humans and recommenders has been examined in various fields using different nomenclatures, research methods and datasets, often producing incongruent findings.

Social media platforms are online fora where users engage in discussions, share content, and build connections. This review explores the dynamics of social interactions, user-generated contents, and biases within the context of social media analysis (analyzing works that use the tools offered by complex network analysis and natural language processing) through the lens of three key points of view: online debates, online support, and human-AI interactions. On the one hand, we delineate the phenomenon of online debates, where polarization, misinformation, and echo chamber formation often proliferate, driven by algorithmic biases and extreme mechanisms of homophily. On the other hand, we explore the emergence of online support groups through users' self-disclosure and social support mechanisms. Online debates and support mechanisms present a duality of both perils and possibilities within social media; perils of segregated communities and polarized debates, and possibilities of empathy narratives and self-help groups. This dichotomy also extends to a third perspective: users' reliance on AI-generated content, such as the ones produced by Large Language Models, which can manifest both human biases hidden in training sets and non-human biases that emerge from their artificial neural architectures. Analyzing interdisciplinary approaches, we aim to deepen the understanding of the complex interplay between social interactions, user-generated content, and biases within the realm of social media ecosystems.

Groups -- such as clusters of points or communities of nodes -- are fundamental when addressing various data mining tasks. In temporal data, the predominant approach for characterizing group evolution has been through the identification of ``events". However, the events usually described in the literature, e.g., shrinks/growths, splits/merges, are often arbitrarily defined, creating a gap between such theoretical/predefined types and real-data group observations. Moving beyond existing taxonomies, we think of events as ``archetypes" characterized by a unique combination of quantitative dimensions that we call ``facets". Group dynamics are defined by their position within the facet space, where archetypal events occupy extremities. Thus, rather than enforcing strict event types, our approach can allow for hybrid descriptions of dynamics involving group proximity to multiple archetypes. We apply our framework to evolving groups from several face-to-face interaction datasets, showing it enables richer, more reliable characterization of group dynamics with respect to state-of-the-art methods, especially when the groups are subject to complex relationships. Our approach also offers intuitive solutions to common tasks related to dynamic group analysis, such as choosing an appropriate aggregation scale, quantifying partition stability, and evaluating event quality.

Large language models are becoming increasingly integrated into our lives. Hence, it is important to understand the biases present in their outputs in order to avoid perpetuating harmful stereotypes, which originate in our own flawed ways of thinking. This challenge requires developing new benchmarks and methods for quantifying affective and semantic bias, keeping in mind that LLMs act as psycho-social mirrors that reflect the views and tendencies that are prevalent in society. One such tendency that has harmful negative effects is the global phenomenon of anxiety toward math and STEM subjects. Here, we investigate perceptions of math and STEM fields provided by cutting-edge language models, namely GPT-3, Chat-GPT, and GPT-4, by applying an approach from network science and cognitive psychology. Specifically, we use behavioral forma mentis networks (BFMNs) to understand how these LLMs frame math and STEM disciplines in relation to other concepts. We use data obtained by probing the three LLMs in a language generation task that has previously been applied to humans. Our findings indicate that LLMs have an overall negative perception of math and STEM fields, with math being perceived most negatively. We observe significant differences across the three LLMs. We observe that newer versions (i.e. GPT-4) produce richer, more complex perceptions as well as less negative perceptions compared to older versions and N=159 high-school students. These findings suggest that advances in the architecture of LLMs may lead to increasingly less biased models that could even perhaps someday aid in reducing harmful stereotypes in society rather than perpetuating them.

Semantic networks provide a useful tool to understand how related concepts are retrieved from memory. However, most current network approaches use pairwise links to represent memory recall patterns. Pairwise connections neglect higher-order associations, i.e. relationships between more than two concepts at a time. These higher-order interactions might covariate with (and thus contain information about) how similar concepts are along psycholinguistic dimensions like arousal, valence, familiarity, gender and others. We overcome these limits by introducing feature-rich cognitive hypergraphs as quantitative models of human memory where: (i) concepts recalled together can all engage in hyperlinks involving also more than two concepts at once (cognitive hypergraph aspect), and (ii) each concept is endowed with a vector of psycholinguistic features (feature-rich aspect). We build hypergraphs from word association data and use evaluation methods from machine learning features to predict concept concreteness. Since concepts with similar concreteness tend to cluster together in human memory, we expect to be able to leverage this structure. Using word association data from the Small World of Words dataset, we compared a pairwise network and a hypergraph with N=3586 concepts/nodes. Interpretable artificial intelligence models trained on (1) psycholinguistic features only, (2) pairwise-based feature aggregations, and on (3) hypergraph-based aggregations show significant differences between pairwise and hypergraph links. Specifically, our results show that higher-order and feature-rich hypergraph models contain richer information than pairwise networks leading to improved prediction of word concreteness. The relation with previous studies about conceptual clustering and compartmentalisation in associative knowledge and human memory are discussed.