三种AI风险想象如何影响治理决策，揭示了政策背后的隐性假设。
The Stories We Govern By: AI, Risk, and the Power of Imaginaries
- 分析三种主流AI风险叙事：存在性危机、加速主义、批判性视角。
- 不同叙事在未来愿景、社会诊断、科技观和人类能动性上差异显著。
- 提醒警惕单一想象主导政策，倡导务实包容的监管策略。
本文探讨了人工智能（AI）风险的多种社会技术想象如何塑造治理决策与监管框架。基于科学技术研究理论，分析三类代表性叙事：强调灾难性通用人工智能（AGI）情景的存在性风险支持者；主张释放AI作为变革力量的加速主义者；以及关注系统性不平等导致当下危害的批判性AI学者。通过对典型宣言式文本的分析，揭示这些想象在四个维度上的差异：对未来的规范性愿景、对当前社会秩序的诊断、对科学与技术的看法，以及对人类管理AI风险能力的认知。研究发现，这些叙事嵌入了不同的风险假设，并可能通过限制替代治理路径的空间而进入政策制定过程。文章反对脱离现实的教条主义，主张超越决定论式想象，转向以实践为基础的监管策略。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
This paper examines how competing sociotechnical imaginaries of artificial intelligence (AI) risk shape governance decisions and regulatory constraints. Drawing on concepts from science and technology studies, we analyse three dominant narrative groups: existential risk proponents, who emphasise catastrophic AGI scenarios; accelerationists, who portray AI as a transformative force to be unleashed; and critical AI scholars, who foreground present-day harms rooted in systemic inequality. Through an analysis of representative manifesto-style texts, we explore how these imaginaries differ across four dimensions: normative visions of the future, diagnoses of the present social order, views on science and technology, and perceived human agency in managing AI risks. Our findings reveal how these narratives embed distinct assumptions about risk and have the potential to progress into policy-making processes by narrowing the space for alternative governance approaches. We argue against speculative dogmatism and for moving beyond deterministic imaginaries toward regulatory strategies that are grounded in pragmatism.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。