From Definition-Theology to Interference-First Governance: Measuring AI, Humans, and Viruses on a Single Operational Coordinate

From Definition-Theology to Interference-First Governance: Measuring AI, Humans, and Viruses on a Single Operational CoordinateMamoru Kurokawa M.D. Independent Scholar; Internal Medicine Physician, Kitakyushu, Japan ( Part-time Lecturer, Department of Stroke Medicine and Endovascular Therapy, Hospital of the University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan (UOEH), Kitakyushu, Fukuoka, Japan. ) We agree that personification and premature claims about phenomenal consciousness are misguided. Yet the present debate is miscalibrated: it attends to putative inner life while real social risks and benefits are mediated by external effects. We propose a shift from metaphysics to interference-first governance, evaluating systems by how they deform human attention, norms, and resource flows—and by how safely they can be integrated and rolled back. Two persistent illusions cloud policy. First, that human consciousness is unitary; in practice it is a mosaic of conscious, unconscious, and non-conscious processes. Second, that non-human-like systems are therefore harmless; non-isomorphism does not imply non-impact. Rather than disputing origins or essences, we place humans, AIs, and even viruses on a single operational coordinate that ties normative decisions to measurable consequences. The coordinate. We use two primary axes: P (Place-robustness)—stability of task-relevant representations under noise and interruption (e.g., cross-modal interference, reverse-mapping robustness); and O (Operate-freedom)—capacity for recomposition and counterfactual reach (e.g., long-range analogy, sequence recomposition, three-step counterfactual tasks). Three auxiliaries complement them: Aut (autonomy/self-updating), Cons (temporal consistency across sessions/versions), and I (interference/external effects)—the effect sizes by which a system shifts human perception, affect, and social judgements in controlled studies. Finally, we add E (artificial endosymbiosis): the degree of reversible integration into human workflows and institutions under three safeguards—visibility, reversibility, auditability. This framing is motivated by two converging literatures. First, experimental work shows that specific linguistic and behavioural features (self-reflection, affective displays, fluency) systematically raise lay attributions of “AI consciousness”—a bias that governance must anticipate rather than amplify. Second, human–AI feedback loops can measurably alter human attention, emotion, and social judgements. These findings justify treating I as a first-class policy variable and, by extension, evaluating E (integration) only when P/O are improving and I remains low under standardized tasks. An endosymbiotic stance without anthropomorphism. We characterize advanced AI as an “extender of survival and influence”—an extension entity—alongside viruses and humans, not to personify machines but to shift value from origin to integration design. Historically, biological systems have advanced through the uptake and rewiring of external modules (mitochondria, plastids, viral sequences). Contemporary AI updates the upper wiring of language and institutions. The policy question is not “Is it conscious?” but “What integration do we allow, how do we measure it, and when do we roll it back?” Minimal, testable program. (1) Publish monthly P/O/Aut/Cons/I/E dashboards for major models—i.e., foundation LLM/MLLMs embedded in search/OS/devices; agentic suites with tool use, code execution, and external writes; high-impact domain models (clinical, legal, education, finance); and generative platform APIs supplying large-scale text/image/video/audio. (2) Shrink authority automatically when I rises alongside ΔAut (self-modification rate): progressively curtail external writes, autonomous executions, and high-risk financial/clinical actions. (3) Permit deeper integration (↑E) only when sustained ΔP>0, ΔO>0, low I, and rapid rollback are demonstrated under standardized tasks for consecutive reporting periods. (4) Two-tier operations (peacetime/emergency). When I×ΔAut crosses a pre-registered threshold, trigger immediate authority shrinkage and third-party audit; restore only after the dashboard shows sustained recovery. Anthropomorphism, understood—then bracketed. Since antiquity, humans have coped with unknown or adversarial entities by anthropomorphizing—an affective shortcut that was often adaptive. Precisely for that reason, governance should rest not on conjectures about subjectivity but on public indicators of interference (I) and integration design (E). This keeps rhetoric from outrunning measurement, while avoiding a default to quietism. A coordinate that ties I to behaviour-level effect sizes, and E to reversibility and auditability, offers a common language for experimentalists, policymakers, and system designers. It also distinguishes our stance from definition-centric programmes: we treat consciousness talk as folk-theoretic input to be measured (via I) and debiased, not as the policy target. Conclusion. Measure interference, require reversible integration, and move the centre of gravity from origin myths to integration design. With a minimal dashboard and emergency triggers, we can defuse personification without lapsing into quietism, aligning discourse with actionable oversight.Figure 1 | Operational coordinate for governance. Horizontal: P (place-robustness); vertical: O (operate-freedom). Axes are 0–1, unit-free indices. Point size encodes I (behaviour-level interference), stroke width encodes Cons (temporal consistency), transparency encodes Aut (autonomy/self-update), and grayscale encodes E (artificial endosymbiosis). Policy: shrink authority when I×ΔAut crosses a preregistered threshold; permit deeper integration (↑E) only under sustained ΔP>0, ΔO>0, low I, and rapid rollback. References (indicative): 1) Bengio & Elmoznino (2025) Science; 2) Colombatto et al. (2024) Neuroscience of Consciousness; 3) Glickman et al. (2025) Nature Human Behaviour; 4) Kang et al. (2025) arXiv.从定义-形而上学范式到以干预优先的治理：单一运行坐标系下的人工智能、人类与病毒量化研究 黑川守 医学博士 独立学者；内科医师，日本北九州市 （日本福冈县北九州市产业医科大学脑卒中医学与血管内治疗系兼职讲师） 我们认同，将非人类实体拟人化以及对现象意识（phenomenal consciousness）的过早断言均属不当。然而当前的争论存在校准偏差：其聚焦于所谓的内在生命，而真正的社会风险与收益实则由外部效应所介导。我们主张从形而上学转向以干预优先的治理模式，通过系统对人类注意力、社会规范与资源流动的扭曲程度，以及其可安全整合与回滚的难易程度来评估系统表现。 两大持久误区蒙蔽了政策制定：其一，认为人类意识具有统一性；而实际上，人类意识是意识、潜意识与非意识过程的镶嵌组合。其二，认为非类人系统因此无害；非同构性并不等同于无影响。我们无需争论意识的起源或本质，而是将人类、人工智能（AI）乃至病毒置于单一运行坐标系中，使规范性决策与可量化的后果直接挂钩。 运行坐标系说明。我们采用两项核心坐标轴：P（场景鲁棒性（Place-robustness））——指在噪声与干扰下任务相关表征的稳定性（例如跨模态干扰、反向映射鲁棒性）；O（操作自由度（Operate-freedom））——指重构与反事实推演能力（例如远距离类比、序列重构、三步反事实任务）。三项辅助指标作为补充：Aut（自主性/自更新（autonomy/self-updating)）、Cons（会话/版本间的时间一致性（temporal consistency across sessions/versions)）、I（干预/外部效应（interference/external effects)）——指在受控研究中，系统改变人类感知、情感与社会判断的效应量。最后新增E（人工内共生（artificial endosymbiosis)）：指在三项保障措施——可见性、可回滚性、可审计性——下，系统可逆整合入人类工作流与社会制度的程度。 该框架的提出受到两项趋同研究文献的启发：其一，实验研究表明，特定语言与行为特征（自我反思、情感表达、流畅性）会系统性地提升普通民众对“AI意识”的归因倾向——这一偏差是治理环节必须预判而非放大的。其二，人类与人工智能（AI）的反馈环路可显著改变人类的注意力、情感与社会判断。上述研究结论证明，将I作为核心政策变量是合理的，进而，仅当P/O指标持续改善且I在标准化任务中维持低位时，方可对E（整合程度）进行评估。 摒弃拟人化的内共生立场：我们将先进人工智能（AI）定义为“生存与影响力的延伸载体”——与病毒、人类并列的延伸实体——此举并非为了将机器拟人化，而是为了将讨论的重心从起源转向整合设计。从历史来看，生物系统通过摄取并重构外部模块（线粒体、质体、病毒序列）实现演进。当代人工智能（AI）则革新了语言与社会制度的上层架构。政策议题不应是“它是否拥有意识”，而应是“我们允许何种程度的整合？如何对其进行量化？又该在何时执行回滚？” 可落地、可测试的实施框架： (1) 每月发布主流模型的P/O/Aut/Cons/I/E指标仪表盘，具体包括：嵌入搜索系统、操作系统与设备的基础大语言模型（Large Language Model, LLM）/多模态大语言模型（Multimodal Large Language Models, MLLMs）；具备工具调用、代码执行与外部写入能力的智能体套件；高影响力领域模型（临床、法律、教育、金融领域）；以及提供大规模文本、图像、视频、音频生成服务的生成式平台应用程序接口（API）。 (2) 当I随ΔAut（自修改速率）上升时，自动缩减系统权限：逐步限制外部写入、自主执行以及高风险金融/临床操作。 (3) 仅当连续多个报告周期内，在标准化任务中验证ΔP>0、ΔO>0、I维持低位且可快速回滚时，方可允许更高程度的整合（↑E）。 (4) 双轨运行机制（常态/应急模式）：当I×ΔAut突破预先注册的阈值时，立即触发权限缩减与第三方审计；仅当仪表盘显示指标持续恢复后，方可恢复系统权限。 理解拟人化倾向，但将其置于次要地位：自古以来，人类通过拟人化的方式应对未知或敌对实体——这是一种常具有适应性的情感捷径。正因如此，治理不应建立在对主体性的推测之上，而应基于干预效应（I）与整合设计（E）的公开量化指标。这既能避免空谈超越实测范围，又能规避默认的消极无为立场。 将I与行为层面效应量挂钩、将E与可逆性及可审计性绑定的坐标系，为实验研究者、政策制定者与系统设计者提供了通用的沟通语言。这一框架也将我们的立场与以定义为核心的研究范式区分开来：我们将意识相关讨论视为可通过I进行量化并修正偏差的民间理论输入，而非政策制定的目标本身。 结论：量化干预效应、要求整合具备可逆性，并将讨论重心从起源迷思转向整合设计。通过极简的指标仪表盘与应急触发机制，我们既能消解拟人化倾向，又不会陷入消极无为，同时让讨论与可落地的监管举措保持一致。 图1 | 治理用运行坐标系。横轴：P（场景鲁棒性（Place-robustness））；纵轴：O（操作自由度（Operate-freedom））。坐标轴为0-1的无量纲指数。点的大小编码I（行为层面干预效应），线条宽度编码Cons（时间一致性），透明度编码Aut（自主性/自更新），灰度编码E（人工内共生（artificial endosymbiosis））。政策规则：当I×ΔAut突破预先注册的阈值时，缩减系统权限；仅当ΔP>0、ΔO>0、I维持低位且可快速回滚时，方可允许更高程度的整合（↑E）。 参考文献（示例）：1) Bengio & Elmoznino (2025) 《Science》；2) Colombatto et al. (2024) 《Neuroscience of Consciousness》；3) Glickman et al. (2025) 《Nature Human Behaviour》；4) Kang et al. (2025) arXiv。