AIGC介入科研知识生产:风险表征、逻辑解构与责任重构  

AIGC Intervenes in Scientific Research Knowledge Production:Risk Representation,Logical Deconstruction and Responsibility Reconstruction

作　　者：王正超 Wang Zhengchao(School of Law,Southeast University,Nanjing,211189)

机构地区：[1]东南大学法学院,南京211189

出　　处：《情报资料工作》2025年第1期57-67,共11页Information and Documentation Services

基　　金：国家社会科学基金重点项目“适合我国的企业行政合规制度构建研究”(批准号:23AFX011);江苏省社会科学基金重点项目“数字时代行政机关公开负面信息研究”(项目编号:23SFX021)的研究成果之一。

摘　　要：[目的/意义]AIGC在强势赋能科研知识生产的同时,诱发剽窃或抄袭、伪造与篡改等传统学术失范风险,催生AI代写、AI技术局限型学术不端行为等新型风险样态,对现行科研评价体系造成冲击,有必要追溯上述风险的发生根源进而对其展开规制。[方法/过程]通过解构AIGC介入知识生产的底层逻辑可知,生成式AI作用于“数据—信息—知识”这一知识层次演进路径,以及知识搜索与知识评估两大思维运作过程,使得知识生产中的人机协作关系呈现AI主导型、AI合作型和AI辅助型等多样化类型,不同人机协作关系类型下研究人员的学术失范责任有所区别。[结果/结论]在具体的责任规制方案上,传统的客观责任立场难以有效应对AIGC学术不端行为主体与责任主体之间的“身份错位”难题。对此,应当采取主观责任立场,根据研究人员之于知识生产的“参与度”和“贡献值”,为其设定独创性声明、透明度义务、禁止造假、观点溯源和事实审查等差异化的学术规范义务,通过相应义务违反性质和程度进一步评价研究人员的主观过错及其可谴责性,从而实现AIGC学术失范风险责任规制体系的合理建构。[Purpose/significance]While AIGC strongly empowers scientific research knowledge production,it also triggers traditional academic misconduct risks such as plagiarism,fabrication and falsification,giving rise to new risk patterns such as AI ghostwriting and AI technology limited academic misconduct,which will impact on the current scientific research evaluation system.It is necessary to trace the root causes of these risks and regulate them.[Method/process]By deconstructing the underlying logic of AIGC intervention in knowledge production,it can be seen that Generative AI acts on the knowledge level evolution path of"data-information-knowledge",as well as the thinking operation process of knowledge search and evaluation,resulting in diverse types of Human-AI collaboration relationships,such as AI dominant,AI cooperative and AI assisted.The academic misconduct responsibilities of researchers vary under different types of Human-AI collaboration.[Result/conclusion]In terms of specific responsibility regulation schemes,the traditional objective accountability stance is difficult to cope with the problem of"identity mismatch"between AIGC academic misconduct subjects and responsible subjects.In this regard,the subjective accountability stance should be adopted,and set differentiated academic normative obligations such as originality declaration,transparency obligation,falsification prohibition,viewpoint tracing and factual examination for the author based on their"participation"and"contribution"in knowledge production.The author's subjective fault and its condemnability could be further evaluated by the nature and degree of obligation violations,thereby achieving a reasonable construction of the AIGC academic misconduct risk responsibility system.

关 键 词：AIGC 生成式人工智能 科研知识生产 AI治理 

分 类 号：G63[文化科学—教育学]