发表机构
Google Research（谷歌研究院）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本文提出一个诊断性框架，通过认识论场所、管理逻辑和技术机制三个坐标，分析生成式AI对认知与文化实践的结构性影响，并揭示信息发现与知识综合中的治理杠杆。
AI 中文摘要
生成式AI正在重塑文化基础设施，知识通过这些基础设施被查找、综合并承担责任。为了理解这一转变，学者和政策制定者常援引印刷术、蒸汽动力或电力等历史技术类比。但这些比较通常对技术中承载比较的属性不够精确，而不精确的类比会导致不精确的治理，因为干预措施针对的是系统中错误的属性。本文提出了一个诊断性框架，用于分析生成式AI如何转变认知与文化实践。我们将每次干预分解为三个坐标：技术作用的认识论场所、组织其对象的管理逻辑，以及该逻辑得以实现的技术机制。该框架使我们能够区分结构性文化后果（由机制本身产生）与偶然性文化后果（仍取决于设计与制度选择）。将该框架应用于信息发现与知识综合，我们展示了从索引性到推断、从编辑权威到统计共识的转变如何产生具体且可追踪的文化效应，并揭示了格式塔类比所掩盖的治理杠杆。
英文摘要
Generative AI is reshaping the cultural infrastructures through which knowledge is found, synthesized, and held accountable. To make sense of this shift, scholars and policymakers reach for historical analogies of technologies such as the printing press, steam power or electricity. But these comparisons are typically imprecise about which property of the technology carries the comparison, and imprecise analogies produce imprecise governance by designing interventions against the wrong property of the system. This paper offers a diagnostic framework for analyzing how generative AI can transform epistemic and cultural practice. This paper offers a diagnostic framework for analyzing how generative AI can transform epistemic and cultural practice. We decompose each intervention into three coordinates: the epistemic site at which a technology acts, the governing logic by which it organizes its object, and the technical mechanism through which the logic is instantiated. This framework allows us to distinguish between structural cultural consequences, which follow from the mechanism itself, from contingent ones, which remain open to design and institutional choice. Applying the framework to information discovery and knowledge synthesis, we show how the shift from indexicality to inference and from editorial authority to statistical consensus produces specific, traceable cultural effects and reveals governance levers that gestalt analogy obscures.
