发表机构
University of Oxford; Magdalen College, Oxford; University of Missouri; University of Hong Kong（牛津大学; 牛津大学莫德林学院; 密苏里大学; 香港大学）
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“人工制品立场”框架，重新定义人机交互为候选文本交换，指出LLM并非对话者，从而消解相关哲学难题，并强调设计、采用与使用的规范性基础。
AI 中文摘要
当我们与大型语言模型（LLMs）互动时，我们是在进行对话吗？它们被设计成邀请我们将它们视为能够记忆、行动并做出承诺的智能对话者。但表象具有欺骗性。我们引入“人工制品立场”这一框架，将人机交互重新构想为以人工制品为中介的候选文本交换。LLM的输出是为效用而优化的候选文本，而非承载意义或语力的言语。LLM是复杂的文本生成器，而非说话者。在会话之间，没有任何运行；在轮次之间，无人记忆。持续存在的是一种配置和一份记录。“对话”是用户的独角戏，是界面和人工制品设计所掩饰的解释性劳动。这一转变消解了近期的一些哲学难题。关于在AI交流中“我”和“你”指代什么、系统能否撒谎或遵守承诺、我们所谓的对话者身份等问题，都基于一个错误的预设。屏幕背后没有说话者，因此没有可指代的对象，也没有可追究责任的主体。与某人对话的感觉，实际上是与一个以前所未有的规模和适配度生成文本的人工制品进行互动。通过摒弃对话框架，我们得以看清这些系统的本质：极其复杂的人工制品，提供多种用途。真正重要的哲学问题关乎设计、采用、授权及人类使用实践的规范性基础。
英文摘要
When we interact with large language models (LLMs), are we having a conversation? They are designed to invite us to treat them as intelligent interlocutors who remember, act, and make commitments. But appearances deceive. We introduce the artifactual stance, a framework that reconceives human-AI interaction as artifact-mediated exchanges of candidate texts. LLM outputs are candidate texts optimized for utility, not utterances bearing meaning or force. LLMs are sophisticated text generators, not speakers. Between sessions, nothing runs; between turns, no one remembers. What persists is a configuration and a transcript. The "conversation" is a user's solo performance, interpretive labour disguised by interface and artifact design. This shift dissolves recent philosophical puzzles. Questions about what 'I' and 'you' refer to in AI exchanges, about whether systems can lie or be held to promises, about the identity of our supposed interlocutors all rest on a false presupposition. There is no speaker behind the screen, hence no one to refer to, no one to hold responsible. What feels like dialogue with someone is interaction with an artifact that generates text at unprecedented scale and fit. By abandoning the conversational framing, we see these systems for what they are: immensely sophisticated artifacts that afford varied uses. The philosophical questions that matter are about the normative underpinnings of design, adoption, authorization, and human practices of use.
Comments24 pages, forthcoming in Inquiry
DOI：10.1080/0020174X.2026.2745114
