发表机构
Coastal Waters Healing Center; Redpanda（沿海水域康复中心; Redpanda公司）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本文提出学科语言迁移问题，指出心理学术语在AI治理中的误用导致系统性失败，并给出包含六问扫描和三十七术语翻译分类法的学科审计工具。
AI 中文摘要
在治理语境中用于描述AI智能体的词汇——学习、记忆、价值观、合规性、身份、信任——均借自心理学和组织科学，这导致了组织在部署、监督和追究智能体责任方面的系统性失败。本文认为，问题不仅是术语性的，更是认识论上的：心理学术语将其所属学科的“隐形语法”带入治理话语，将框架校准至一个在当前AI架构中并不存在的形而上学实体。我们将此称为学科语言迁移问题。借鉴维特根斯坦的语言游戏概念、库恩的范式负载观察、哈拉维的情境知识，以及斯塔尔和格里泽默的边界对象理论，我们表明这种迁移在三个层面运作（认识论假设、理论构念和表层词汇），每个层面都需要不同的补救措施。我们刻画了西方心理学治理话语中嵌入的六个基本认识论假设，追溯其在特定哲学传统中的起源，并说明为何当应用于缺乏发展连续性的系统时，每个假设都会失效。本文的实际产出是一个可操作的学科审计：一个六问题的治理文件扫描，通过一个包含三十七个术语的翻译分类法进行操作化，将操作构念映射到适合智能体的替代词，此处以删节形式呈现，完整版本已公开存档。本文提出的词汇改革不仅是术语性的；它是治理框架正确识别其治理对象的可能性条件。
英文摘要
The vocabulary used to describe AI agents in governance contexts -- learning, memory, values, compliance, identity, trust -- is borrowed from psychological and organizational science, contributing to systematic failures in how organizations deploy, oversee, and hold agents accountable. This paper argues that the problem is not merely terminological but epistemological: psychological vocabulary carries an "invisible grammar" of its home discipline into governance discourse, calibrating frameworks to a metaphysical entity that does not exist in current AI architectures. We call this the disciplinary language transfer problem. Drawing on Wittgenstein's concept of language games, Kuhn's paradigm-laden observation, Haraway's situated knowledge, and Star and Griesemer's boundary object theory, we show that the transfer operates at three levels (epistemological assumptions, theoretical constructs, and surface vocabulary), each requiring a different remediation. We characterize six foundational epistemological assumptions embedded in Western psychological governance discourse, trace their origin in specific philosophical traditions, and show why each fails when applied to systems without developmental continuity. The paper's practical output is an actionable Disciplinary Audit: a six-question governance document scan operationalized through a translation taxonomy of thirty-seven terms mapping operational constructs to agent-appropriate replacements, presented here in abridged form and openly archived in full. The vocabulary reform proposed here is not merely terminological; it is the condition of possibility for governance frameworks that correctly identify what they are governing.
