发表机构
Fudan University（复旦大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本文探讨生成式AI中解释的形成、评估与责任，提出三个相关概念及延迟闭合实践与五项公开要求，指出局部评估等不能作为解释确立的充分证据。
AI 中文摘要
生成式AI研究越来越多地对事实性、引用、覆盖范围和报告结构进行评估。然而，通过此类局部检查本身并不能表明一种人文解释已得到确立。本文探讨一种解释如何在社会技术过程中得到认可，引入了三个相互关联的概念：“解释性外观”指输出的成品形式与可公开追溯的过程之间的差距，该过程中材料、反证和修订对判断构成了约束；“评估契约”指局部判断有效的限定材料、任务、标准、允许的推理以及失败条件；“身份替代”指在没有相应新证据或衔接论证的情况下，将局部的合格结论无依据地转化为“一种解释、结果或研究能力已得到确立”的更强主张。随后，本文考察判断的责任：文本可能获得认可，却没有公开结构来陈述理由、回应异议、修订、降级或撤回结论。人文研究提供了一个有启发性的测试，因为新材料和概念区分既可以改变问题，也可以改变评估标准。因此，本文提出“延迟闭合”作为让已认可的解释保持可修订状态的实践，并就材料与版本、证据角色、失败、契约修订以及责任提出五项公开要求。该论证是概念性和规范性的，不声称提供基准或确定模型是否具有理解能力，而是解释为何不能将局部评估、成品文本形式和公开认可视为一种解释已形成的充分证据。
英文摘要
Generative AI research has increasingly evaluated factuality, citation, coverage, and report structure. Yet passing such local checks does not by itself show that a humanistic interpretation has been established. This paper asks how an interpretation comes to be recognized within sociotechnical processes. It introduces three connected concepts. Interpretive appearance names the gap between the finished form of an output and the publicly traceable process through which materials, counterevidence, and revisions constrained the judgment. The evaluation contract names the bounded materials, tasks, criteria, permitted inferences, and failure conditions within which a local judgment is valid. Standing substitution names the unwarranted conversion of a genuine local pass into a stronger claim that an interpretation, result, or research capability has been established, without commensurate new evidence or bridging arguments. The paper then examines responsibility for judgment: a text may acquire recognition while no public structure remains for stating reasons, answering objections, revising, downgrading, or withdrawing the conclusion. Humanistic scholarship provides a revealing test because new materials and conceptual distinctions can alter both the question and the criteria of evaluation. The paper therefore develops delayed closure as a practice of keeping recognized interpretations revisable and proposes five public requirements concerning materials and versions, evidential roles, failure, contract revision, and responsibility. The argument is conceptual and normative: it does not claim to offer a benchmark or to determine whether models possess understanding. It instead explains why local evaluation, finished textual form, and public recognition must not be treated as sufficient evidence that an interpretation has been formed.
CommentsConceptual paper on generative AI, interpretive standing, evaluation, and responsibility in humanistic scholarship
