发表机构
Lehigh University（利哈伊大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
针对AI复活治理，提出关系权威概念，基于93个系统审计与四个案例，将授权从一次性同意重构为随表征移动可追溯的问责链。
AI 中文摘要
AI复活常被框定为同意问题：被代表的人是否授权被制作发言？这个问题很重要，但它将权威冻结在创造时刻。一个表征之后可能更换模型、传给亲属、依赖提供商、纳入与他人共享的记录，或远超预期受众地传播。我们认为，核心治理问题因此不在于授权是否一次性存在，而在于表征移动时授权是否仍可辨识。通过对93个系统的公共记录审计，创造比发言、质疑、保存或离开的条件更容易检查：82个系统中同意或权威信息薄弱，82个系统中异议或救济薄弱，77个系统中删除或导出薄弱。系统间的差异揭示了为何这些缺口不能简化为一个透明度分数。人类身后生命显示同意随时间变得不完整。伴侣动物身后生命始于主体同意不可得之处，共享照护必须分配权威。邻近的角色扮演和模仿系统显示声音、肖像和个性如何能进入后续身后使用。四个公共案例遵循从生前参与、通过亲密死后创造、到第三方传播和家庭争议的相同运动。基于这些证据，我们发展出关系权威：授权分布在人、记录、提供商和受众之间，且必须随着这些关系变化保持可追溯。这将AI复活从一个一次性授权的产品重构为一个问责链，连接创造权威、来源边界、传播、争议和退出。该研究衡量用户和受影响方可以公开检查的内容；私人实施和实际结果仍是开放的经验问题。
英文摘要
AI resurrection is often framed as a question of consent: did the represented person authorize being made to speak? That question matters, but it freezes authority at the moment of creation. A representation can later change models, pass to relatives, depend on a provider, incorporate records shared with others, or circulate far beyond its intended audience. We argue that the central governance problem is therefore not whether authorization exists once, but whether it remains legible as the representation moves. Across a public-record audit of 93 systems, creation was far easier to inspect than the conditions for speaking, contesting, preserving, or leaving: consent or authority information was thin in 82 systems, objection or redress in 82, and deletion or export in 77. The differences among systems reveal why these gaps cannot be reduced to one transparency score. Human afterlives show consent becoming incomplete over time. Companion-animal afterlives begin where subject consent is unavailable and shared care must allocate authority. Adjacent persona and mimetic systems show how voices, likenesses, and personalities can travel into later afterlife uses. Four public cases follow the same movement from premortem participation, through intimate postmortem creation, to third-party circulation and family contestation. From this evidence we develop relational authority: authorization is distributed across people, records, providers, and audiences, and must remain traceable as those relations change. This reframes AI resurrection from a product authorized once into an accountability chain linking creation authority, source boundaries, circulation, contestation, and exit. The study measures what users and affected parties can inspect publicly; private implementation and lived outcomes remain open empirical questions.
Comments23 pages, 3 tables, 1 figure. Full preprint with a 93-system public-record audit and four public cases
