发表机构
PSL（巴黎文理研究大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本文提出动态反思性追踪（DRT）框架，论证生成式AI中人类作者身份取决于理由是否持续、反思性地塑造作品，而非操作步骤数量。
AI 中文摘要
生成式人工智能（GenAI）显著扩展了创作者的生产能力，但这并不必然意味着创造性能动性或作者身份相应增加。本文区分了作品层面的创造力与创作者层面的创造性能动性，并论证人类作者身份不能仅由人工干预、自动化程度、初始想法的来源或最终选择权来决定。相反，作者身份取决于人类的判断和理由是否真正塑造了作品的发展。为阐明这一要求，本文将有意义的人类控制（MHC）引入生成式创作，并指出其经典追踪条件的一个局限。创造性理由并不总是在与人工智能互动之前完全明确；它们可能在创作过程中浮现、变化或被放弃。因此，本文提出了动态反思性追踪（DRT），要求创作者不断演化的理由经历反思性采纳，对后续创作轨迹产生真正影响，并保持拒绝和重定向系统默认方向的能力。DRT由四个条件组成：历时性理由形成、反思性采纳、轨迹效能以及可争议性与重定向，并辅以最小追踪要求。本文论证，在生成式人工智能下，人类作者身份不取决于个人亲自执行多少步骤，而取决于其理由是否持续、反思性地且有效地塑造作品最终成为的样子。
英文摘要
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) significantly expands creators' productive capacity, but this does not necessarily entail a corresponding increase in creative agency or authorship. This paper distinguishes creativity at the level of the work from creative agency at the level of the creator, and argues that human authorship cannot be determined solely by manual intervention, degree of automation, the origin of an initial idea, or final selection authority. Rather, authorship depends on whether human judgment and reasons genuinely shape the development of the work. To articulate this requirement, the paper introduces Meaningful Human Control (MHC) into generative creation and identifies a limitation of its classical tracking condition. Creative reasons are not always fully specified prior to interaction with AI; they may emerge, change, or be abandoned as the creative process unfolds. The paper therefore proposes dynamic-reflexive tracking (DRT), which requires that a creator's evolving reasons undergo reflective uptake, exert genuine influence on the subsequent trajectory of creation, and remain capable of rejecting and redirecting the system's default direction. DRT consists of four conditions: diachronic reason formation, reflective uptake, trajectory efficacy, and contestability and redirection, together with a minimal tracing requirement. The paper argues that human authorship under generative AI depends not on how many steps a person personally performs, but on whether that person's reasons continuously, reflectively, and effectively shape what the work becomes.
Comments27 pages
