Papers

arXiv 论文提出“技术混合主义”框架,分析机器生成语言的递归语义规范化

Technohybridism: Recursive Semantic Normalization in AI-Mediated Societies

Why we picked it

这篇论文讲了个有意思的现象:AI 写的文本被反复引用后又变成训练数据,慢慢改变人类语言习惯。想理解 AI 对社会的长期影响可以看看。

arXiv 论文 2611.07984 提出 recursive semantic normalization(递归语义规范化)概念,描述机器生成文本被反复采用并回流到训练语料与制度实践中的过程。文章以 technohybridism(技术混合主义)为框架,将分析单位定为人类实践、计算生成与制度采纳三者耦合的混合语义系统。作者区分了生成、选择、采纳与持久化四个环节,并将该概念与 model collapse、machine culture 等邻近理论对比。论文还归纳了三种社会认识论后果:来源混淆削弱认知警觉、认知多样性受损、共享解释资源收窄,并给出实证研究的证据阶梯。

Original · arXiv cs.AI

Technohybridism: Recursive Semantic Normalization in AI-Mediated Societies

Language-generating AI systems are no longer only objects of linguistic interaction: their outputs increasingly re-enter the communicative and institutional practices from which their training material was drawn. Drawing on social theory, social epistemology, and the philosophy of language, this article develops a sociotechnical account of that re-entry. We introduce recursive semantic normalization: the process through which machine-generated formulations, once recurrently taken up, evaluated, reused, and institutionally retained, participate in the reproduction and transformation of semantic regularities. Under the heading of technohybridism, we argue that the relevant unit of analysis is the hybrid semantic system, a recursively coupled configuration of human practices, computational generation, and institutional uptake. First, we distinguish the concept from neighbouring accounts, including model collapse, looping effects, machine habitus, machine culture, and the epistemology of AI testimony. Second, we develop an analytical model that separates generation, selection, uptake, and persistence and distinguishes machine-attributable change from change that would have occurred anyway. Third, we analyse uptake as routinized, institutionally diffused, and socially stratified practice and state conditions under which machine-derived regularities become norms. Fourth, we identify social-epistemic consequences: the laundering of provenance that weakens epistemic vigilance, the erosion of the cognitive diversity on which collective inquiry depends, and the narrowing of shared hermeneutical resources. An evidential ladder for empirical research follows. The account attributes no normative authority to machine outputs; what changes is the field within which human and institutional uptake operates.