谁决定情绪的意义？情感主权作为测量限制的认知后果
Who Determines the Meaning of an Emotion? Affective Sovereignty as an Epistemic Consequence of Measurement Limits
AI总结：
本文提出情感主权规范，指出由于测量结构限制导致个体情绪意义分布存在不可约不确定性，情感AI无法权威地确定情绪意义，最终解释权应属于体验主体。
摘要：
情感感知AI正迅速嵌入车辆、家用电器、对话代理和社会基础设施，催生了一个情绪不再局限于个体体验，而是在社会尺度上被观察和计算的领域，我们称之为情感圈。然而，该领域的一个核心规范问题仍未得到充分探讨：谁拥有决定自己情绪意义的最终权威？本研究从测量结构限制的认知论角度解决这一问题。我们将意义分布定义为在固定标注协议下，从人群中抽取的标注者所分配标签的分布，并将其不确定性分解为可约和不可约成分。然后我们证明，虽然情感AI可以分配高置信度的点标签并在聚合层面区分真实差异，但在现实标注者数量下，个体实例的意义分布的不可约成分无法以足够的覆盖度进行估计，我们将这种系统性分歧称为认知鸿沟。关键发现是，高设备置信度并不构成已恢复不可恢复意义的证据。从这一认知鸿沟，结合明确陈述的规范前提——即原则上无法恢复某个量的系统的输出不得被视为其权威性确定——我们推导出规范：对自身情绪意义的最终解释权在程序上保留给体验主体，即情感主权规范。这些结果表明，情感AI的设计、评估和监管应将解释权的明确分配而非准确性最大化置于核心。
英文摘要：
Emotion-sensing AI is rapidly becoming embedded in vehicles, home appliances, dialogue agents, and social infrastructure, giving rise to a sphere in which emotion is no longer confined to individual experience but is instead observed and computed at a societal scale, a domain we term the Affectosphere. Yet a central normative question in this domain has remained underexplored: who has the final authority to determine the meaning of one's own emotion? This study addresses the question from the epistemological side of measurement's structural limits. We define a meaning distribution as the distribution of labels assigned by annotators drawn from a population under a fixed annotation protocol, and decompose its uncertainty into reducible and irreducible components. We then demonstrate that, while emotion AI can assign high-confidence point labels and discriminate real differences at an aggregate level, the irreducible component of the meaning distribution for individual instances cannot be estimated with adequate coverage under realistic annotator counts, a systematic divergence we term the epistemic gap. The key finding is that high device confidence does not constitute evidence that irrecoverable meaning has been recovered. From this epistemic gap, together with an explicitly stated normative premise, namely that the output of a system which cannot recover a quantity in principle must not be treated as its authoritative determination, we derive the norm that the final interpretive authority over the meaning of one's emotion is procedurally reserved for the experiencing subject, the norm of affective sovereignty. These results suggest that the design, evaluation, and regulation of emotion AI should place explicit allocation of interpretive authority, rather than accuracy maximisation, at their core.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
