情绪识别技术越精准,越可能破坏人际信任与社会互动的弹性空间。
Technosocial risks of ideal emotion recognition technologies: A defense of the (social) value of emotional expressions
- 从社会功能角度重新审视情绪表达,指出其不仅是内心状态的反映
- 理想化情绪识别系统会削弱情感表达的模糊性,导致关系意义被技术替代
- 适合关注人工智能伦理、社会心理学及数字治理的研究者阅读
理想化情绪识别技术(ERTs)常被主张能提升情感透明度,从而促进社会福祉。本文通过哲学、情感科学与社会心理学研究指出,情绪表达不仅反映内在状态,更承担协调行动、修复道德关系、维系人际信任和支撑集体规范等社会功能。这些功能依赖于一定程度的表达模糊性与认知摩擦。当理想化ERTs在权威或评价性场景中应用时,会消除认知摩擦,以技术生成的情绪画像取代关系中的意义建构,压缩了期待性与角色敏感性表达的空间。最终导致情感决定论与弥漫式情感监控,损害社会凝聚力与个体自主性。尽管提高精度看似合理,但在此类技术中,准确性并不直接证明其正当性,反而可能成为监管的依据。论文主张应采用‘功能优先’的监管框架,将表达自主权与有意情绪表达视为社会价值的核心,须加以保护以防止过度情感可读性。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
The prospect of AI systems that I call ideal emotion recognition technologies (ERTs) is often defended on the assumption that social life would benefit from increased affective transparency. This paper challenges that assumption by examining the technosocial risks posed by ideal ERTs, understood as multimodal systems capable of reliably inferring inner affective states in real time. Drawing on philosophical accounts of emotional expression and social practice, as well as empirical work in affective science and social psychology, I argue that the appeal of such systems rests on a misunderstanding of the social functions of emotional expression. Emotional expressions function not only as read-outs of inner states, but also as tools for coordinating action, enabling moral repair, sustaining interpersonal trust, and supporting collective norms. These functions depend on a background of partial opacity and epistemic friction. When deployed in socially authoritative or evaluative contexts, ideal ERTs threaten this expressive space by collapsing epistemic friction, displacing relational meaning with technology-mediated affective profiles, and narrowing the space for aspirational and role-sensitive expressions. The result is a drift towards affective determinism and ambient forms of affective auditing, which undermine both social cohesion and individual agency. I argue that, although it is intuitive to think that increasing accuracy would legitimise such systems, in the case of ERTs accuracy does not straightforwardly justify their deployment, and may, in some contexts, provide a reason for regulatory restraint. I conclude by defending a function-first regulatory approach that treats expressive discretion and intentional emotional expression as constitutive of certain social goods, and that accordingly seeks to protect these goods from excessive affective legibility.
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。