发表机构
Aalto University; The University of Edinburgh; Shanghai Jiao Tong University; Nanyang Technological University（阿尔托大学; 爱丁堡大学; 上海交通大学; 南洋理工大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本研究考察中国2026年拟人化AI服务监管下用户反应与集体抗争，基于小红书数据发现用户通过保留、迁移和重建策略维持关系连续性，并通过比较监管实施归因责任，揭示基础设施依赖如何连接关系连续性与集体行动。
AI 中文摘要
AI模型更新和服务退出可能破坏用户与AI伴侣的关系，但现有研究大多聚焦于单一平台事件。对于多个提供商共同实施国家监管时用户的反应，我们知之甚少。本研究考察了用户围绕中国2026年拟人化AI交互服务监管所做出的反应和集体抗争。我们收集了2026年4月10日至8月10日期间小红书上的讨论，使用经过验证的语言模型进行相关性筛选，并对89篇帖子、1425条评论和2005条回复进行了定性内容分析和主题分析。用户采取保留、迁移和重建伴侣等策略，发现保留对话记录并不一定能恢复共享记忆或熟悉的互动。他们通过比较各平台的监管措施、解释和实施方式来归因责任。团结通过互助和呼吁尊重其他社区的情感依恋而涌现，而关于目标和策略的争议则暴露了集体行动条款的争议性。在这一国家监管转型期间，基础设施依赖性将关系连续性与集体抗争联系起来。
英文摘要
AI model updates and service withdrawals can disrupt relationships with AI companions, but research has largely examined individual platform events. Less is known about users' responses when multiple providers implement shared national regulations. We examine users' reactions and collective contestation surrounding China's 2026 regulation of anthropomorphic AI interaction services. We collected RedNote discussions from April 10 to August 10, 2026, used a validated language model for relevance screening, and conducted qualitative content and thematic analyses of 89 posts, 1,425 comments, and 2,005 replies. Users retained, migrated, and reconstructed companions, finding that preserving conversation records did not necessarily restore shared memories or familiar interactions. They compared regulations, platform explanations, and implementations to assign responsibility. Solidarity emerged through mutual aid and appeals to respect other communities' attachments, while disputes over targets and tactics exposed contested terms of collective action. Infrastructural dependence connected relational continuity and collective contestation during this national regulatory transition.
