AI & Society最新文献_第4页

Negotiating epistemic authority in the age of generative AI: AI reliance, responsibility, and usage intensity among GenAI-using coaching professionals 生成式人工智能时代的认知权威谈判：使用人工智能的教练专业人员对人工智能的依赖、责任和使用强度

IF 6.1

AI & Society Pub Date : 2026-08-04 DOI: 10.1007/s00146-026-03242-z

Jennifer Haase

{"title":"Negotiating epistemic authority in the age of generative AI: AI reliance, responsibility, and usage intensity among GenAI-using coaching professionals","authors":"Jennifer Haase","doi":"10.1007/s00146-026-03242-z","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s00146-026-03242-z","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The emergence of generative AI (GenAI) within human-centered guidance professions marks a transformative shift in society that transcends mere improvements in technical efficiency. With large language models (LLMs) becoming increasingly embedded in professional practices centered on care, trust, and relational knowledge, critical questions arise about how algorithmic systems reshape human agency, autonomy, tacit expertise, and the ethical foundations of professional relationships. This study examines these questions through coaching, a socio-cultural practice characterized by tacit expertise, empathetic engagement, and care obligations. Through a survey with 205 self-identified GenAI-using coaches, this research explores how algorithmic systems mediate professional practice, what tensions emerge between human-centered values and algorithmic logic, and what this may reveal, within the boundaries of this exploratory sample, about emerging patterns in human–AI relations. The findings reveal that coaches report using GenAI extensively for structured, information-intensive tasks while maintaining control over relational and interpretative work. This pattern can be understood as boundary work preserving human authority over domains of tacit expertise. Significantly, frequent GenAI users report higher scores on self-reported ethical behaviors and beliefs, yet the majority rely on proprietary LLM platforms, highlighting structural constraints that shape technological choices. These patterns highlight critical societal questions about the valuation of tacit expertise, trust formation in AI-mediated relationships, and design justice issues in AI development. The study contributes to understanding how AI integration may reconfigure, and not just augment, the ethical foundations and cultural understanding of professional practice, with urgent implications for shaping AI-mediated futures for the common good.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47165,"journal":{"name":"AI & Society","volume":"41 10","pages":"9729 - 9748"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00146-026-03242-z.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149230670","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Making sense of AI: how lay users negotiate the shifting human–machine boundaries in talking about AI 理解人工智能：外行用户在谈论人工智能时如何协调不断变化的人机边界

IF 6.1

AI & Society Pub Date : 2026-08-04 DOI: 10.1007/s00146-026-03164-w

Patricia Jimenez, Younhee Kim, Richard Fitzgerald

{"title":"Making sense of AI: how lay users negotiate the shifting human–machine boundaries in talking about AI","authors":"Patricia Jimenez, Younhee Kim, Richard Fitzgerald","doi":"10.1007/s00146-026-03164-w","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s00146-026-03164-w","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper examines how lay users make sense of artificial intelligence (AI) in everyday encounters and through practical reasoning and situated categorisation practices. Drawing on data from digital diaries and in-person group discussions, the study explores the local and situated ways lay users determine what kind of “thing” AI is, what it does, and how it should be judged. Rather than approaching AI as a fixed defined entity, the paper centres in participants procedures for meaning making. Specifically, the analysis focuses on three categorisation practices: the relational exclusion of the human-machine device, the assemblage of branched taxonomies, and the troubling of categorial boundaries. These practices reflect an ongoing negotiation of intelligibility, in which AI is explained not through formal and technically accurate definitions but through occasioned and socially recognisable use of every day categories. The paper draws on Membership Categorisation Analysis and Occasioned Semantics to show that the intelligibility of AI is both locally and culturally accomplished. In doing so, the paper reframes the notion of AI explainability as a situated achievement of human reasoning, rather than a system’s feature. An insight, we hope would have implications, if not at least a provocation, to the field of explainable AI and, more broadly, to the way we understand AI literacy, trust, and the everyday grammar of intelligence.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47165,"journal":{"name":"AI & Society","volume":"41 9","pages":"8571 - 8590"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00146-026-03164-w.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149098622","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

AIDLC–governance indicator framework: a lifecycle-based approach to institutional AI governance 人工智能治理指标框架：基于生命周期的机构人工智能治理方法

IF 6.1

AI & Society Pub Date : 2026-08-04 DOI: 10.1007/s00146-026-03173-9

Chin-Pei He, Yu-Ru Pan, Kuo-Chung Chu

{"title":"AIDLC–governance indicator framework: a lifecycle-based approach to institutional AI governance","authors":"Chin-Pei He, Yu-Ru Pan, Kuo-Chung Chu","doi":"10.1007/s00146-026-03173-9","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s00146-026-03173-9","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Governments increasingly deploy algorithmic and AI-enabled systems in welfare administration, fraud detection, eligibility determination, and frontline service delivery. As these systems become embedded in routine public administration, agencies face rising expectations to sustain procedural fairness, accountability, and transparency throughout system development and long-term operation. Recent public-sector failures suggest that governance responsibilities are frequently fragmented across organizational units and unevenly enacted over time, enabling administrative harms to emerge without clear attribution of responsibility. This paper synthesizes and operationalizes a lifecycle-aligned governance indicator framework that treats AI governance as an institutional responsibility sustained across key phases of the AI development lifecycle. Drawing on established debates in algorithmic public administration, the framework organizes governance dimensions, including accountability and oversight, data governance, fairness and transparency practices, and post-deployment monitoring, into phase-specific and evidence-oriented indicators. Each indicator specifies the expected administrative artifacts that may support qualitative assessment, such as role assignment records, data documentation, assessment records, transparency disclosures, and monitoring logs. In this way, the framework supports traceable governance interpretation rather than a static compliance checklist, numerical scoring model, or formal audit determination. We use two public-sector cases as illustrative applications to examine how publicly reported information can be organized in relation to phase-specific governance responsibilities and potential governance concerns. This work offers a structured, evidence-oriented lens for public-sector lifecycle assessment, while recognizing that the framework does not provide causal validation, formal audit findings, universal applicability, or comprehensive governance coverage across AI domains.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47165,"journal":{"name":"AI & Society","volume":"41 10","pages":"9439 - 9451"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149230653","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Epistemia in the classroom: the problem of evidence of understanding in education in the age of generative AI 课堂上的认知：生成性人工智能时代教育中理解的证据问题

IF 6.1

AI & Society Pub Date : 2026-08-04 DOI: 10.1007/s00146-026-03227-y

Giulia Bini, Walter Quattrociocchi

{"title":"Epistemia in the classroom: the problem of evidence of understanding in education in the age of generative AI","authors":"Giulia Bini, Walter Quattrociocchi","doi":"10.1007/s00146-026-03227-y","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s00146-026-03227-y","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In 1973, a sixth-grade student named Benny produced correct mathematical answers consistently and was regarded as one of his teacher's best pupils. In-depth interviews revealed that he had developed syntactically functional rules entirely devoid of mathematical meaning. Half a century later, large language models generate fluent and coherent texts through statistical pattern completion, without grounding, experience, or metacognition, and are systematically attributed understanding that exceeds their generative architecture. This paper offers a theoretical contribution by proposing that both cases may be understood as manifestations of the same underlying cognitive mechanism, which we conceptualise as epistemic pareidolia: the tendency to project epistemic capacities onto entities that produce formally aligned outputs through non-epistemic processes. Epistemic pareidolia is theorised as enabling epistemia, the condition in which surface plausibility substitutes for evidence-based reasoning as the operative criterion for attributing understanding. We develop the educational implications of this theoretical framework across three dimensions, evaluative, institutional, and formative, and argue that what is at stake is not a technical problem, but a signal of the need for a paradigm shift in education to form future citizens able to navigate technology-mediated societies: from the production of articulated texts to their interrogation as the emerging evidence of understanding in the age of generative AI.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47165,"journal":{"name":"AI & Society","volume":"41 10","pages":"9219 - 9231"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149230690","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The distributed Leviathan: AI, networked violence, and the fragmentation of responsibility 分布式利维坦：人工智能，网络暴力，以及责任的碎片化

IF 6.1

AI & Society Pub Date : 2026-08-04 DOI: 10.1007/s00146-026-03244-x

Per M. Gustavsson

{"title":"The distributed Leviathan: AI, networked violence, and the fragmentation of responsibility","authors":"Per M. Gustavsson","doi":"10.1007/s00146-026-03244-x","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s00146-026-03244-x","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>AI-mediated environments increasingly reorganize violence, perception, and responsibility through networked digital relations in which action emerges without clearly localized actors. This paper examines how networked infrastructures and artificial intelligence transform the relationship between subjectivity, operational control, and accountability in contemporary societies. Rather than understanding digitally mediated violence as an isolated consequence of technological innovation, the paper argues that AI systems extend a longer historical transformation in which responsibility has become abstracted from individual action and redistributed across sociotechnical infrastructures. Drawing on cybernetics, systems theory, and contemporary philosophy of technology, the paper argues that digital platforms, recommendation systems, and probabilistic AI models now function as operational environments that shape attention, orientation, and social perception through amplification dynamics. Within such systems, violence no longer operates primarily through centralized command or ideological coherence, but through participation, amplification, and distributed coordination across digital platforms and users. The paper further argues that digital infrastructures destabilize modern assumptions about the autonomous responsible subject. As perception, communication, and decision-making become mediated through opaque computational infrastructures, responsibility becomes progressively fragmented across networks whose systemic effects exceed the intentions of individual participants. The paper proposes that the current technological order is characterized by distributed operational structures in which human beings interact through algorithmically mediated representations of social reality.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47165,"journal":{"name":"AI & Society","volume":"41 10","pages":"9761 - 9766"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00146-026-03244-x.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149230675","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Museums: critical knowledge infrastructure in the age of AI 博物馆：人工智能时代的关键知识基础设施

IF 6.1

AI & Society Pub Date : 2026-08-03 DOI: 10.1007/s00146-026-03274-5

José-Carlos Mariátegui

引用次数: 0

The quasi-gods of algorithmic providence: recommender systems and religious frameworks 算法的准神：推荐系统和宗教框架

IF 6.1

AI & Society Pub Date : 2026-07-25 DOI: 10.1007/s00146-026-03103-9

Ljubiša Bojić, Mark Coeckelbergh, Ernest Ženko, Petar Stevanović, Damian Guzek

{"title":"The quasi-gods of algorithmic providence: recommender systems and religious frameworks","authors":"Ljubiša Bojić, Mark Coeckelbergh, Ernest Ženko, Petar Stevanović, Damian Guzek","doi":"10.1007/s00146-026-03103-9","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s00146-026-03103-9","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Recommender systems now mediate information exposure for over half the global population daily, shaping beliefs, values, and life decisions at unprecedented scale. Prior research has documented polarization effects, responsibility gaps in autonomous systems, and patterns of AI sacralization in public discourse. Philosophy of technology has established that such systems function as socio-technical assemblages with world-making power rather than neutral tools. Yet few works systematically compare theological doctrines of providence with algorithmic steering, and the convergence of large language models with recommenders has rarely been examined as a transformation of authority and meaning-making. This paper develops a comparative framework drawing on Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and Buddhist accounts of providence alongside AI ethics, sociology of digital religion, and philosophy of technology. This analysis reveals that recommender systems resemble providence phenomenologically through ubiquity, apparent omniscience, and guidance, but differ decisively in ontology and teleology. These systems optimize for engagement metrics rather than genuine human goods, close futures through performative predictions, and create conditions for what we term technological idolatry. Integration with large language models intensifies these dynamics through conversational persuasion and agentic capabilities. This paper proposes design and governance strategies to resist algorithmic determinism, preserve moral agency, and relocate responsibility within platform infrastructures. The argument is integrative rather than strictly empirical, and systematic field experiments tracing long-run causal effects of recommenders remain scarce. Future research should develop standardized metrics for social impact and test care-based design proposals under controlled conditions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47165,"journal":{"name":"AI & Society","volume":"41 9","pages":"8247 - 8266"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2026-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00146-026-03103-9.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149099084","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

When AI speaks: user imaginaries of generative AI and freedom of expression 当AI说话时：用户对生成AI和言论自由的想象

IF 6.1

AI & Society Pub Date : 2026-07-25 DOI: 10.1007/s00146-026-03188-2

Petter Bae Brandtzaeg, Xi Wang

{"title":"When AI speaks: user imaginaries of generative AI and freedom of expression","authors":"Petter Bae Brandtzaeg, Xi Wang","doi":"10.1007/s00146-026-03188-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s00146-026-03188-2","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Platform societies already shape how users communicate, participate, and become visible. The rise of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), through systems such as ChatGPT and Grok, may further deepen these dynamics, introducing new and fundamental challenges to freedom of expression, including questions of authorship. However, despite the expanding reach of this technology, research on how users understand of GenAI’s influence on expressive freedom remains scarce. To address this gap, we conducted in-depth interviews with active GenAI users on the social media platform X, focusing on their experiences and reflections on using the technology in the context of freedom of expression. Using thematic analysis and the concept of GenAI imaginaries, we identified five imaginaries: (1) Pragmatic Tool, (2) Knowledge Authority, (3) Hybrid Speech, (4) Power Struggle, and (5) Ethical Issues. Together, these imaginaries show how participants make sense of GenAI’s role in changing how speech and expression are produced, constrained, and made visible. Participants imagined expressive freedom as being shaped by guardrails and content restrictions, trust and misinformation concerns, ethical issues, and automated content creation In particular, the Hybrid Speech imaginary illustrates how human and AI-generated expression increasingly intertwine, challenging the idea of speech as solely human-authored and raising questions about speaker autonomy, authorship, and accountability in public debate. Our findings contribute to debates on AI governance and freedom of expression by showing how users themselves understand GenAI as reshaping authorship, visibility, and expressions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47165,"journal":{"name":"AI & Society","volume":"41 10","pages":"9489 - 9503"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2026-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00146-026-03188-2.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149230778","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

“Foreword” to Topical collection of AI and Society on critical code studies 人工智能与社会关于关键代码研究的专题合集“前言”

IF 6.1

AI & Society Pub Date : 2026-07-25 DOI: 10.1007/s00146-026-03208-1

N. Katherine Hayles

引用次数: 0

Sympoietic creativity and the boundaries of qing: digital romance writers negotiating generative AI 同体创作与清的边界：数位言情作家协商生成人工智能

IF 6.1

AI & Society Pub Date : 2026-07-24 DOI: 10.1007/s00146-026-03253-w

Liang Ge

{"title":"Sympoietic creativity and the boundaries of qing: digital romance writers negotiating generative AI","authors":"Liang Ge","doi":"10.1007/s00146-026-03253-w","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s00146-026-03253-w","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study investigates how writers of high-velocity Chinese digital romance fiction negotiate the arrival of generative AI at the desk. Drawing on a 4-year multi-sited digital ethnography (2021–2025) and interviews with 34 writers on Jinjiang Literature City alongside sustained forum observation and platform-discourse analysis, this article tracks how authors of serial romance work under the time discipline of the daily-update treadmill in the presence of large language models (LLMs). I argue that what is emerging is sympoietic creativity: a distributed practice of “making-with” the machine that is fraught, ambivalent and strategic rather than collaborative or replacement-driven. Four modes of negotiation co-exist across the cohort. In <i>strategic collaboration</i>, writers delegate world-building, naming and structural error-checking to the LLM. In <i>cyborg authorship</i>, they curate machine-generated prose under acute platform pressure, at the cost of what they themselves call the work’s “aura.” In <i>conditional refusal</i>, they hold the line at the inter-subjective texture of feeling they consider, on present evidence, beyond the model’s competence. In <i>narrative incorporation</i>, they thematize algorithmic logic in the fiction itself, casting the algorithmic system as villain and human emotion as the route to victory. Throughout, I reserve <i>qing</i>—the inter-subjective, somatic bond from which affect, desire, and embodiment become legible to the reader—as a precise analytical term distinct from generic English-language emotion or affect. The human zone these writers preserve is not a permanent or guaranteed space, but an unstable equilibrium sustained by reader vigilance, platform metrics, and writer self-discipline—any of which could withdraw.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47165,"journal":{"name":"AI & Society","volume":"41 10","pages":"9309 - 9320"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1,"publicationDate":"2026-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00146-026-03253-w.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149230672","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0