When Does an Interpretation Count as Established? The Formation, Evaluation, and Responsibility of Interpretation in Generative AI

• tag:aim-pro.eu,2026:oer/1030a5adccf0
• https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.04766
• arxiv:2609.04766

This engine's id, the source URI, and any persistent identifier the source published.

• When Does an Interpretation Count as Established? The Formation, Evaluation, and Responsibility of Interpretation in Generative AI

The title of this resource, not of the record or repository it came from.

• dcmitype:Text
• preprint

A DCMI Type term for the form held, plus the source's own genre label as declared.

• Deyu Jing

Only agents the source named as creators. A repository owner is not made an author by default.

• Generative AI research has increasingly evaluated factuality, citation, coverage, and report structure. Yet passing such local checks does not by itself show that a humanistic interpretation has been established. This paper asks how an interpretation comes to be recognized within sociotechnical processes. It introduces three connected concepts. Interpretive appearance names the gap between the finished form of an output and the publicly traceable process through which materials, counterevidence, and revisions constrained the judgment. The evaluation contract names the bounded materials, tasks, criteria, permitted inferences, and failure conditions within which a local judgment is valid. Standing substitution names the unwarranted conversion of a genuine local pass into a stronger claim that an interpretation, result, or research capability has been established, without commensurate new evidence or bridging arguments. The paper then examines responsibility for judgment: a text may acquire recognition while no public structure remains for stating reasons, answering objections, revising, downgrading, or withdrawing the conclusion. Humanistic scholarship provides a revealing test because new materials and conceptual distinctions can alter both the question and the criteria of evaluation. The paper therefore develops delayed closure as a practice of keeping recognized interpretations revisable and proposes five public requirements concerning materials and versions, evidential roles, failure, contract revision, and responsibility. The argument is conceptual and normative: it does not claim to offer a benchmark or to determine whether models possess understanding. It instead explains why local evaluation, finished textual form, and public recognition must not be treated as sufficient evidence that an interpretation has been formed.

The abstract, and the depositor's additional notes after it when the source has a field for them.

• cs.CY (arxiv)
• cs.AI (arxiv)

Declared keywords and taxonomy terms, each carrying its scheme.

• en

The language of the content as the language gate read it.

• http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

The licence document, as a URI where the gate resolved one.

• CC-BY-4.0 — assessed as OPEN by the harvester's licence gate. Conditions: attribution required. open, permissive

The verdict and the conditions, in words.

• open

The access condition the source declared. Not the licence.

• text/markdown

One value per form held — the original and the extracted text.

• 130701 bytes (extracted text)

Sizes in bytes, each saying which form it measures.

• 2026-09-04

When the resource was published. Not when it was collected.

• doi:10.71279/epw.v61i8.48455
• doi:10.1145/3442188.3445922
• arXiv:2506.11763
• arXiv:2305.14627
• doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.467
• doi:10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1
• doi:10.1111/jedm.12000
• arXiv:2601.08536
• doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07146-0
• arXiv:2111.15366
• arXiv:2304.07007
• doi:10.1162/coli_a_00486
• and 7 more, every one of them in the export

Works this one cites, when the source declares them as relations. What its text links to and its reference list cites is inferred, and stands under it apart.

• Retrieved from arXiv on 2026-10-09 in response to the search string “(all:"artificial intelligence" OR all:"machine learning" OR all:"generative AI" OR all:"deep learning" OR all:"reinforcement learning" OR all:"large language model") AND (all:"AI concepts" OR all:"types of AI" OR all:"AI fundamentals" OR all:"recognizing AI" OR all:"recognising AI" OR all:"general versus narrow AI" OR all:"narrow AI" OR all:"general AI" OR all:"machine intelligence" OR all:"AI strengths and weaknesses" OR all:"traditional software" OR all:"rule-based systems" OR all:"introduction to AI" OR all:"introduction to artificial intelligence" OR all:"artificial intelligence introduction" OR all:"AI primer" OR all:"foundations of artificial intelligence" OR all:"overview of AI" OR all:"understanding AI" OR all:"history of AI" OR all:"AI essentials" OR all:"AI terminology" OR all:"metaphors for AI" OR all:"AI fundamental concepts" OR all:"AI key concepts" OR all:"philosophy of AI" OR all:"critical AI literacy")”. arXiv served the resource and is not asserted to be its publisher or author.
• Text extracted from latexml-html to Markdown by ar5iv; the original is retained unchanged beside it.

Where it was collected from, what was converted, and what container it came out of — the custody statements that would otherwise be mistaken for authorship.

• URI: tag:aim-pro.eu,2026:oer/1030a5adccf0
• URI: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.04766
• ARXIV: 2609.04766

This engine's identifier for the resource, the source URI, and any persistent identifier the source published.

• When Does an Interpretation Count as Established? The Formation, Evaluation, and Responsibility of Interpretation in Generative AI

• en

The language of the content, as the language gate read it off the converted text. The language the source declared is kept separately.

• Generative AI research has increasingly evaluated factuality, citation, coverage, and report structure. Yet passing such local checks does not by itself show that a humanistic interpretation has been established. This paper asks how an interpretation comes to be recognized within sociotechnical processes. It introduces three connected concepts. Interpretive appearance names the gap between the finished form of an output and the publicly traceable process through which materials, counterevidence, and revisions constrained the judgment. The evaluation contract names the bounded materials, tasks, criteria, permitted inferences, and failure conditions within which a local judgment is valid. Standing substitution names the unwarranted conversion of a genuine local pass into a stronger claim that an interpretation, result, or research capability has been established, without commensurate new evidence or bridging arguments. The paper then examines responsibility for judgment: a text may acquire recognition while no public structure remains for stating reasons, answering objections, revising, downgrading, or withdrawing the conclusion. Humanistic scholarship provides a revealing test because new materials and conceptual distinctions can alter both the question and the criteria of evaluation. The paper therefore develops delayed closure as a practice of keeping recognized interpretations revisable and proposes five public requirements concerning materials and versions, evidential roles, failure, contract revision, and responsibility. The argument is conceptual and normative: it does not claim to offer a benchmark or to determine whether models possess understanding. It instead explains why local evaluation, finished textual form, and public recognition must not be treated as sufficient evidence that an interpretation has been formed.

The abstract, and the depositor's additional notes after it as a second LangString when the source has a field for them.

• cs.CY
• cs.AI

• v1

• Deyu Jing — author

Role, entity and date per declared contribution. A role outside LOM's vocabulary is reported in the entry's description instead.

• URI: tag:aim-pro.eu,2026:oer/1030a5adccf0/record

The identifier of this metadata record — the resource's own, with /record after it, because the record is a description of the resource and not the resource.

• AIM-PRO WP3 OER harvester (arXiv) — creator

Who generated this record and when — a statement about the record, not about the resource.

• LOMv1.0
• aimpro-oer-profile/1

LOMv1.0, and the profile this was built against.

• en

• text/markdown

One value per form held: the original as the source published it, and the Markdown this engine extracted.

• 130701

Bytes. The original's, because the resource is the file and not our conversion of it.

• https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.04766

Where the source serves it.

• narrative text

Only from a declaration that maps onto LOM's vocabulary. A file format is not a declaration.

• no — free to use

No: the licence gate refuses anything it cannot establish open reuse terms for, before the bytes are requested.

• yes — attribution required (CC-BY-4.0)

Yes unless the licence reserves nothing — attribution is a restriction. The conditions after the dash are the licence gate's reading; the export carries LOM's bare term.

• CC-BY-4.0 · http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Conditions: adaptation permitted, attribution required.

The SPDX id, the licence URI and the conditions. LOM has no element for any of the three, so this is where they survive.