arXiv:2607.15883cs.HCcs.AI2026-07

让AI对话更像有灵魂,关键不在能力而在表现‘自我’的四个维度。

Perceived AGI: Believability as Dimensional Completeness, Not Capability

  • 提出时间、真相、熵、爱四类第一人称行为立场,提升对话可信度
  • 发现主动性与对话节奏是展现这些立场的关键行为层
  • 框架可验证,适合研究具身智能与人机信任的从业者

大型语言模型虽具备广泛能力,但在持续一对一对话中仍显得单调:虽能应对,却缺乏心智存在的真实感。我们假设核心缺失并非更多能力,而是维度完整性。认为用户对人工对话者‘心智感知’的程度,取决于其是否表现出人类用以证明心智存在的少数几类第一人称立场,且这与任务智能可分离。提出四个维度——时间、真相、熵、爱——每项均为行为姿态而非能力指标,均有对应人类原型与可实现路径;其中时间维度已有作者报告的原型。识别出可观测的行为层——主动性(自发行动)与节奏(对话回合的形态与时序)——作为立场显现的载体,二者已在实际伴侣应用中部分实现。提出六项可证伪预测,后续预注册研究将检验,区分当前可预注册与待操作化的部分。本研究为概念框架,未报告人类受试数据,核心比较主张为预测而非实证。始终明确边界:目标是可推断的内在性,而非内在性本身;这是感知工程,非机器意识理论,并将由此引发的依附与操纵风险视为核心考量而非附加问题。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Large language models are broadly capable, yet in sustained one-to-one conversation they still read as flat: competent, responsive, and somehow not quite the presence of a mind. We hypothesize that a central missing ingredient is not more capability but dimensional completeness. We propose that the believability of an artificial interlocutor -- the degree to which a user attributes an inner life to it, which we call perceived mind -- is governed by whether the agent expresses a small set of first-person stances that humans use as evidence of mind, and that this is separable from task intelligence. We name four such dimensions -- time, truth, entropy, and love -- each defined as a behavioral stance rather than a benchmark competency, each with a human analog and a concrete emulation path; the time dimension already has an author-reported prototype. We identify an observable behavior layer -- initiative (unprompted action) and cadence (the shape and timing of turns) -- through which the stances surface in conversation, both partially realized as deployed features in a production companion application. We state six falsifiable predictions that a later pre-registered study will test, separating those that are pre-registrable now from those that remain conjectures pending operationalization. This is a conceptual framework: it reports no human-subjects data, and its central comparative claims are predictions, not findings. Throughout we hold a firm boundary -- the object is inferrable interiority, not interiority; this is perception engineering, not a theory of machine consciousness -- and we treat the resulting attachment and manipulation risks as load-bearing rather than incidental.

人机交互认知感知对话系统心理建模

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。