arXiv:2607.01248cs.CYcs.AI2026-07

揭示AI生成内容的认知风险,提出可审计的实践监管框架。

A Practice Auditing Framework for Large Language Model Use: Collective Empiricism, Pseudo-Rational Cognition, and Governance of AI-Generated Content

  • 构建集体经验压缩与伪理性认知机制,解释AI输出为何看似合理却存风险。
  • 识别输入结构、模板循环、统计误判等五大认知陷阱,揭示内容污染路径。
  • 适合关注AI治理、人机协作与长期记忆系统的研究者与实践者。

大语言模型在知识获取、代码生成、学术写作及代理自动化中广泛应用,用户常获得高度结构化的答案、计划与判断,却缺乏真实领域实践。本文提出一种用于LLM使用与AI生成内容治理的实践审计框架,引入‘集体经验’概念描述模型如何将大规模人类经验压缩为看似实证且理性的输出;提出‘伪理性认知’机制,说明用户可能将AI生成的结构化表达误认为自身理性理解。论文分析了AI主观性错觉、输入材料中的主体性结构、AI-AI对话中的模板循环、AIGC检测中的统计误判,以及生成内容进入未来上下文、长期记忆、检索空间或代理技能系统后的记忆污染问题。为降低风险,提出基于需求定义、问题边界识别、证据源审计、实践验证、反向质疑、日志记录、版本管理、回滚与认知重构的审计流程。该框架不否定AI生产力,主张将LLM输出回归至可验证、可复现、可干预的实践过程。为认知风险、AI生成内容治理、长期记忆系统与人机交互提供概念与可审计框架。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Large language models are increasingly used for knowledge acquisition, code generation, academic writing, and agent-based automation. In these settings, users may obtain highly structured answers, plans, and judgments without sufficient domain practice. This paper proposes a practice auditing framework for LLM use and AI-generated content governance. It introduces collective empiricism to describe how LLMs compress and reorganize large-scale human experience into outputs that appear empirical and rational, and pseudo-rational cognition to describe how users may mistake AI-generated structured expression for their own rational understanding. The paper analyzes AI subjectivity illusion, subjectivity structures in input materials, template loops in AI-AI conversations, statistical misjudgment in AIGC detection, and memory pollution when generated content enters future contexts, long-term memory, retrieval spaces, or agent skill systems. To reduce these risks, the paper proposes an auditing process based on requirement definition, problem-boundary identification, evidence-source auditing, practical validation, reverse questioning, logging, version management, rollback, and renewed cognition. The framework does not reject AI productivity; it argues that LLM outputs should be returned to verifiable, reproducible, and intervenable processes of practice. The paper provides a conceptual and auditable framework for cognitive risks in LLM interaction, AI-generated content governance, long-term memory systems, and human-AI interaction.

AI治理认知风险人机交互内容审计

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。