生成式人工智能与两种形式的脱钩
Generative AI & Two Forms of Decoupling
- Harvard University（哈佛大学）
- Northeastern University（东北大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。
AI总结：
本文提出框架分析生成式AI导致的文本生产与人类活动脱钩问题，区分价值基础，并探讨机构如何修复脱钩及应优先保留的功能。
AI中文摘要：
文本制品有时不仅因其页面上的文字而受到重视，还因其产生过程中所涉及的人类活动而受到重视。在一封精心定制的电子邮件中所投入的努力可以传达出真正的兴趣；撰写道歉信可能涉及关注他人的伤痛并决定如何回应；而要求法官给出书面理由可能会促使更审慎的思考。人工智能模型制造了我们所谓的“脱钩问题”：它们使得在不经历相关人类活动的情况下产生文本成为可能，切断了文本与传统上由该活动所维系的价值之间的联系。本文开发了一个框架，用以理解脱钩所危及的内容，以及那些利用文本做出 consequential 决策的机构如何相应地重塑其实践。首先，它提供了一个关于重视生产过程之理由的分类，区分该过程之所以重要，是因为它证明了什么、诱导了什么，还是有助于构成什么。其次，它论证文本可以作为一种边界对象，使机构能够依赖同一制品，而无需解决关于该实践为何有价值的争议。人工智能可以将先前由同一实践所服务的功能分离开来——这是一种二阶脱钩，使得关于实践目的之未解决问题变得可见。第三，它论证机构修复脱钩的努力可能会恢复某些功能，而无法保留其他功能。此类回应可能更倾向于那些更易解读、其丧失需要立即关注、或其利益相关者拥有更大影响力的功能。因此，它呼吁就实践中应保留哪些特定功能进行更明确的审议，并为那些利益可能被忽视者提供有意义的代表。
英文摘要：
Textual artifacts are sometimes valued not only for the words on the page, but for the human activity involved in producing them. The effort invested in a carefully tailored email can signal genuine interest; composing an apology might involve attending to another person's hurt and deciding how to respond; and requiring a judge to give written reasons may induce more careful deliberation. AI models create what we call a decoupling problem: they make it possible to produce text without undergoing the relevant human activity, severing its connection to values traditionally sustained by that activity. This Article develops a framework for understanding what decoupling puts at stake, and how institutions that use text to make consequential decisions may reshape their practices in response. First, it offers a taxonomy of the grounds for valuing the production process, distinguishing whether that process matters for what it evidences, induces, or helps constitute. Second, it argues that text can function as a kind of boundary object, allowing institutions to rely on the same artifact without resolving disagreements about why the practice is valuable. AI can separate functions previously served by the same practice - a second-order decoupling that brings unresolved questions about the practice's purposes into view. Third, it argues that institutional efforts to repair decoupling may recover some functions without preserving others. Such responses are likely to favor functions that are more legible, whose loss demands immediate attention, or whose stakeholders have greater influence. It therefore calls for more explicit deliberation about which particular functions of a practice to preserve, with meaningful representation for those whose interests might otherwise be overlooked.
