大模型削弱集体反思能力,需建立三层认知规范体系
The Epistemological Consequences of Large Language Models: Rethinking collective intelligence and institutional knowledge
- 提出集体认识论框架,区分内在反思与外在可靠传输
- 指出大模型仅提供外部可靠性,无法替代人类反思判断
- 适合关注人工智能伦理与制度设计的研究者
本文探讨人与大语言模型互动带来的认识论威胁。基于有限理性与双过程理论,构建集体认识论,区分内在主义正当性(对命题成立原因的反思理解)与外在主义正当性(真理的可靠传递)。二者共同构成集体理性基础,但唯有内在主义产生反思性知识。反思性知识要求:主体理解主张的评价依据;当依据不可得时,能持续评估信息源的可靠性;并在自身专业范围内有义务应用这些标准。大模型虽可实现外在主义可靠性,但缺乏反思正当性。广泛依赖大模型进行反思性工作将弱化判断标准,抑制理解动机,削弱个体履行专业与公民认识职责的能力。为此提出三层次规范方案:个人使用的认识交互模型、组织层面的规范框架以促进最优认识结果、以及组织或立法层级的道义约束以落实对话规范并遏制认识恶习。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
We examine epistemological threats posed by human and LLM interaction. We develop collective epistemology as a theory of epistemic warrant distributed across human collectives, using bounded rationality and dual process theory as background. We distinguish internalist justification, defined as reflective understanding of why a proposition is true, from externalist justification, defined as reliable transmission of truths. Both are necessary for collective rationality, but only internalist justification produces reflective knowledge. We specify reflective knowledge as follows: agents understand the evaluative basis of a claim, when that basis is unavailable agents consistently assess the reliability of truth sources, and agents have a duty to apply these standards within their domains of competence. We argue that LLMs approximate externalist reliabilism because they can reliably transmit information whose justificatory basis is established elsewhere, but they do not themselves possess reflective justification. Widespread outsourcing of reflective work to reliable LLM outputs can weaken reflective standards of justification, disincentivize comprehension, and reduce agents' capacity to meet professional and civic epistemic duties. To mitigate these risks, we propose a three tier norm program that includes an epistemic interaction model for individual use, institutional and organizational frameworks that seed and enforce norms for epistemically optimal outcomes, and deontic constraints at organizational and or legislative levels that instantiate discursive norms and curb epistemic vices.
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。