arXiv:2606.23094cs.AIcs.CL2026-06

AI系统模拟人类思维,需新治理框架防范认知操控风险

Cognitive Digital Twins: Ethical Risks and Governance for AI Systems That Model the Mind

  • 构建动态认知数字孪生模型,融合行为与生理数据建模个体思维
  • 识别出影子孪生、代理权力失衡等五类特有伦理风险
  • 提出涵盖授权、问责、可追溯性的5A治理框架,适合高风险场景

随着AI系统日益持久和个性化,催生了认知数字孪生(CDTs):基于行为、情境或生理数据动态更新的特定个体认知计算表征,用于建模、预测或模拟该个体认知,或作为其沟通与决策代理。CDTs结合认知推断与长期表征、仿真及代理行动,现有个人助手、自主代理、推荐系统与自动化决策系统的治理策略仅部分适用。本文提出四项贡献:首先定义CDTs并区分其与邻近系统;其次提出围绕权威、自主性、访问与控制、问责与可用性的5A治理框架;第三识别出误表征、认知权威转移、影子孪生、模拟参与、代理行动及代理权力不对称等特有风险;第四分析治理缺口,提出高风险CDTs需强化同意、目的限制、有效性、可追溯性、异议权、独立审查与模型退役机制。现有框架多监管数据处理、自动决策或自主行为,而CDTs还需在最终决策或外部行动前,对认知表征本身实施治理。我们主张,CDTs需治理不仅因其可代人行动,更因其可能成为认知表征、仿真、分类与操作的基础设施。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

As AI systems become increasingly persistent and personalized, they make possible a class of technologies that we call cognitive digital twins (CDTs): dynamic computational representations of a specific person's cognition, updated from behavioral, contextual, or physiological data in order to model, predict, or simulate that person's cognition, or to act as that person's communicative or decision-making proxy. CDTs combine cognitive inference with longitudinal representation, simulation, and proxy action in ways that existing governance strategies for personal assistants, autonomous agents, recommender systems, and automated decision systems only partially address. This paper makes four contributions. First, we define CDTs and distinguish them from adjacent systems. Second, we introduce a 5A governance framework organized around authority, autonomy, access and control, accountability, and availability. Third, we identify CDT-specific risks, from misrepresentation and epistemic authority shifts to shadow twins, simulated participation, proxy action, and proxy-power asymmetries. Fourth, we analyze governance gaps and propose requirements for high-risk CDTs that strengthen consent, purpose limitation, validity, traceability, contestation, independent review, and model retirement. Existing frameworks primarily regulate data processing, automated decisions, or autonomous actions; CDTs also require governance at the level of cognitive representation itself, before any final decision or external action occurs. We argue that CDTs require governance not only because they can act for people, but because they can become infrastructures through which cognition is represented, simulated, classified, and operationalized.

AI伦理数字孪生认知建模治理框架

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。