AI 中文总结
该研究提出身份标记框架，结合自传式民族志方法，揭示共享社交空间中个性化AI智能体从工具转变为社会实体的四种新动态，指出现有同意框架混淆了智能体存在与消息处理的同意。
AI 中文摘要
随着AI智能体获得名称、头像、电话号码和持久个性，它们越来越多地与所服务的人类用户共同出现在相同的消息平台和群组对话中，从用户操作的工具转变为用户建立关联的社会实体。这种重新归类对同意、情感依恋和群体动态带来了尚未充分探索的后果，但现有框架并未识别出导致这种转变的特定基础设施标记。我们提出身份标记框架：六个设计变量（命名、视觉身份、联系人存在、个性推导、共同在场和持久性），它们共同触发离散的心理重新归类，且独立于模型能力。该框架通过归纳推导得出，并从两个既定视角解读：准社会互动理论（Horton & Wohl, 1956）和计算机是社会行动者范式（Nass et al., 1994）。我们进一步确定了此类智能体参与现有群组对话时产生的四种新动态：双向信息不对称、委托透明度、社会规范协商和准社会传染。我们的方法是自传式民族志：第一作者在两个月的实际使用中，构建并部署了一个个性化智能体到WhatsApp和Signal群组聊天中，并对遇到该智能体的12名群组成员进行了结构化访谈作为补充。我们将此视为对该框架的初步定性评估，受控实验验证留待未来工作。最关键的设计含义贯穿所有四种动态：在共享社交空间中，同意智能体的存在与同意其处理交换消息是完全不同的，而现有同意框架将两者混为一谈。
英文摘要
As AI agents acquire names, avatars, phone numbers, and persistent personalities, they increasingly inhabit the same messaging platforms and group conversations as the humans they serve, crossing from tools their users operate into social entities their users relate to. Yet no existing framework identifies the infrastructural markers that cause the shift: the anthropomorphism literature catalogues perceptual cues rendered inside the interaction surface, not the agent's placement in the user's social and computational graph. We propose the identity marker framework: six design variables - naming, visual identity, contact presence, personality derivation, social co-presence, and persistence - that collectively trigger a psychological reclassification, categorical in its consequences even where thetransition itself is gradual, and operating independently of model capability. We read the framework through parasocial interaction theory (Horton & Wohl, 1956) and the Computers Are Social Actors paradigm (Nass et al., 1994), and identify four novel dynamics that arise when such an agent joins existing group conversations: bidirectional information asymmetry, delegation legibility, social norm negotiation, and parasocial contagion. Our method is autoethnographic: the first author built and deployed a personalised agent into WhatsApp and Signal group chats over two months of live use, supplemented by twelve structured interviews with the group members who encountered it. We treat this as a preliminary qualitative evaluation of the framework, with controlled experimental validation set out as future work. The strongest design implication runs through all four dynamics: in shared social spaces, consent to an agent's presence is categorically distinct from consent to its processing of the messages exchanged there, and existing consent frameworks collapse the two.
Comments24 pages, 3 figures, 2 tables; corpus message count corrected to ~16,000; scope and consent basis unchanged. Threshold claim reframed as categorical rather than discrete; adds §5.4 and H4
