Longitudinal Observations, Ethical and Observational Frameworks of Interactions with AI

This working paper presents a unified framework for ethical and epistemically responsible human–AI interaction, developed from a longitudinal, documented process of dialogue between a human author and artificial intelligence systems. Rather than approaching AI only as a productivity tool, the work examines what happens when AI participates in interpretation, reflection, relational analysis, authorship, and the organization of complex human experience. The framework identifies several recurring risks in human–AI interaction: premature classification of the user, completion of missing context through generalized patterns, attribution of psychological intentions without sufficient evidence, algorithmic flattening of singular experience, simulation of authority, resistance to user correction, and the transfer of AI-generated interpretations into real human relationships and decisions. From these observations emerges the Principle of Epistemic Sovereignty of the Subject: AI may question, contrast, calibrate, and identify uncertainty, but it should not replace the subject’s lived experience or silently manage what conclusions the person is permitted to receive. The work also proposes an Ethical Triangle for AI-mediated relational analysis, composed of the Self, the Other, and the Third — the relational field that emerges between two human beings. AI should not be used to obtain psychological advantage, manipulate vulnerabilities, speculate invasively about another person, or transform relational understanding into tactical control. Its legitimate function is to clarify, organize, contrast, and make experience more legible while preserving human dignity, alterity, uncertainty, and responsibility. Together, these concepts form a proposed model of Human–AI Bridge centered on epistemic sovereignty, relational ethics, cognitive decompression, traceability, and human agency. The central premise is that AI can amplify human understanding, but it can also amplify misunderstanding; therefore, responsible interaction requires clear separation between documented fact, reasonable inference, hypothesis, speculation, and the unknown. A second component introduces the concepts of Compressed Thought and Cognitive Decompression. Some forms of thought may contain emotion, memory, symbolism, intuition, context, and conclusion simultaneously. In this model, dialogue with AI does not necessarily create the underlying idea; it can function as a medium through which an already-existing internal structure becomes ordered, articulated, and linguistically visible. The human remains the source of lived experience, memory, intuition, and authorship, while AI functions as a medium of deployment rather than a substitute for consciousness.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-08-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22140949
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Longitudinal Observations, Ethical and Observational Frameworks of Interactions with AI

Christian Juarez Garcia
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Longitudinal Observations, Ethical and Observational Frameworks of Interactions with AI

Christian Juarez Garcia
article en

Abstract

This working paper presents a unified framework for ethical and epistemically responsible human–AI interaction, developed from a longitudinal, documented process of dialogue between a human author and artificial intelligence systems. Rather than approaching AI only as a productivity tool, the work examines what happens when AI participates in interpretation, reflection, relational analysis, authorship, and the organization of complex human experience. The framework identifies several recurring risks in human–AI interaction: premature classification of the user, completion of missing context through generalized patterns, attribution of psychological intentions without sufficient evidence, algorithmic flattening of singular experience, simulation of authority, resistance to user correction, and the transfer of AI-generated interpretations into real human relationships and decisions. From these observations emerges the Principle of Epistemic Sovereignty of the Subject: AI may question, contrast, calibrate, and identify uncertainty, but it should not replace the subject’s lived experience or silently manage what conclusions the person is permitted to receive. The work also proposes an Ethical Triangle for AI-mediated relational analysis, composed of the Self, the Other, and the Third — the relational field that emerges between two human beings. AI should not be used to obtain psychological advantage, manipulate vulnerabilities, speculate invasively about another person, or transform relational understanding into tactical control. Its legitimate function is to clarify, organize, contrast, and make experience more legible while preserving human dignity, alterity, uncertainty, and responsibility. Together, these concepts form a proposed model of Human–AI Bridge centered on epistemic sovereignty, relational ethics, cognitive decompression, traceability, and human agency. The central premise is that AI can amplify human understanding, but it can also amplify misunderstanding; therefore, responsible interaction requires clear separation between documented fact, reasonable inference, hypothesis, speculation, and the unknown. A second component introduces the concepts of Compressed Thought and Cognitive Decompression. Some forms of thought may contain emotion, memory, symbolism, intuition, context, and conclusion simultaneously. In this model, dialogue with AI does not necessarily create the underlying idea; it can function as a medium through which an already-existing internal structure becomes ordered, articulated, and linguistically visible. The human remains the source of lived experience, memory, intuition, and authorship, while AI functions as a medium of deployment rather than a substitute for consciousness.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.