发表机构
College of Information Sciences and Technology, The Pennsylvania State University; College of Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University（宾夕法尼亚州立大学信息科学与技术学院; 宾夕法尼亚州立大学工程学院）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本研究提出主动协商框架，将LLM持续使用解释为风险、缓解与正当化循环，揭示无形劳动驱动的顺从采纳。
AI 中文摘要
大型语言模型（LLM）已成为学术工作的常见工具，尽管用户描述它们降低了其写作、思考和技能水平。主流的采纳框架将持续使用视为满意度的证据，无法解释对不信任工具的持续使用。我们访谈了36名研究生工作者，在英语作为外语（EFL）与非EFL使用者之间保持平衡，并提出了“主动协商”框架：一个将LLM持续使用建模为风险、缓解和正当化反复循环的模型。一次失败暴露风险，缓解劳动应对风险，正当化使残余风险可容忍，直到下一次失败重新开启循环。该循环在三个维度上运行：实践维度，审查输出；内在维度，审查自身认知与身份；社会维度，管理同伴和机构对使用的看法。EFL参与者援引语言对等作为进一步正当化理由。我们将持续采纳重新定义为由无形劳动维持的顺从行为。
英文摘要
Large language models (LLMs) have become fixtures of academic work even as their users describe them as degrading their writing, thinking, and skills. Dominant adoption frameworks read continued use as evidence of satisfaction, and cannot explain continued use of a distrusted tool. We interviewed 36 graduate student workers, balanced between English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) and non-EFL speakers, and introduce the Active Negotiation framework: a model of sustained LLM use as a recurring cycle of risk, mitigation, and justification. A failure surfaces a risk, mitigation labor addresses it, and a justification renders the residual risk tolerable until the next failure reopens the cycle. The cycle runs across three dimensions: practical, auditing output; internal, auditing one's own cognition and identity; and social, managing how peers and institutions perceive use. EFL participants invoke linguistic parity as a further justification. We reframe continued adoption as compliance sustained by invisible labor.
Comments28 pages, 3 figures, 4 tables. Under review
