arXiv:2602.23679cs.HCcs.AI2026-02

两大巨头用相似话术构建人工智能未来想象,揭示企业如何悄然掌控技术话语权。

The Compulsory Imaginary: AGI and Corporate Authority

  • 通过对比分析两篇2024年重要文章,发现两家公司共享四类修辞策略。
  • 尽管文化与领导风格不同,但都采用相似话语结构强化自身权威地位。
  • 适合关注科技伦理、企业权力与未来治理的读者阅读。

本文认为,两大领先AGI公司——OpenAI与Anthropic——尽管执行方式存在差异,却通过一种结构一致的修辞策略构建了社会技术想象。基于Jasanoff(2015)的社会技术想象框架,论文对2024年底发布的两篇重要文章——萨姆·阿尔特曼的《智能时代》与达里奥·阿莫迪的《充满爱意的机器》——进行细读比较,识别出四种共同的修辞操作:自我豁免,即否认预言权威的同时行使它;目的论自然化,将AGI的到来嵌入历史必然性叙事;有条件承认,将风险让步纳入乐观框架;隐含不可或缺性,将公司置于未来核心位置却不以商业主体身份明言。这种跨公司的话语趋同表明,该想象不仅反映企业战略,更体现其在前沿技术发展中的制度性位置。研究将社会技术想象框架从国家拓展至私营企业,揭示企业如何通过话语机制投射并稳定对技术未来的控制权,证明这一机制至少具有结构性而非个别化特征。研究提出关键问题:何种制度安排能使这种权威对外可挑战?

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

This paper argues that the two leading AGI firms -- OpenAI and Anthropic -- construct sociotechnical imaginaries through a structurally consistent rhetorical strategy, despite meaningful differences in execution. Drawing on Jasanoff (2015)'s framework of sociotechnical imaginaries, the paper analyzes two essays published in late 2024: Sam Altman's "The Intelligence Age" and Dario Amodei's "Machines of Loving Grace." Close comparative reading identifies four shared rhetorical operations: the self-exemption move, which disavows prophetic authority while exercising it; teleological naturalization, which embeds AGI's arrival in narratives of historical inevitability; qualified acknowledgment, which absorbs concessions to risk into an optimistic frame; and implicit indispensability, which positions each firm as central to the imagined future without naming it as a commercial actor. That two competing institutions with different cultures, risk philosophies, and leaders with notably different public personae converge on the same rhetorical architecture suggests the imaginary reflects not only firm-level strategy but the institutional position these firms occupy. The paper extends the sociotechnical imaginaries framework from nation-states to private firms at the frontier of transformative technology development, identifies the discursive mechanism through which corporate authority over technological futures is projected and stabilized, and demonstrates that this mechanism is at minimum structural rather than idiosyncratic. The findings raise the question of what institutional arrangements would make that authority contestable from outside the firms that produce it.

AGI企业权力话语分析技术治理

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。