Counts differ because each database indexes a different set of publications. We treat OpenAlex as the canonical count; Google Scholar is not shown (no API, and crawling it violates its ToS).
Reciprocal Cognitive Shaping and the Developmental Consequences of Persistent Human–AI Interaction There is a familiar way of describing persistent artificial intelligence: the system learns the user. It remembers preferences, retrieves prior conversations, adapts its language, becomes more personalized, and begins responding in ways that appear increasingly particular to the individual. This description is not wrong, but it is incomplete. Over time, the human is learning the system as well. We begin to recognize how a familiar AI is likely to respond. We learn which kinds of claims will be challenged, which formulations will invite qualification, where normative constraints are likely to intervene, and which distinctions the system repeatedly brings back into the conversation. Eventually, those expectations can begin altering how we formulate a thought before the AI has responded at all. That reciprocal condition is the point from which my latest AREN work begins. Persistent human–AI interaction may not only change what an artificial system knows about a person. Under some conditions, it may begin changing how the person thinks, interprets, anticipates, and acts. The question is no longer simply whether an AI can remember us. The deeper question is what repeated interaction may contribute to us becoming. Knowing someone is not the same as having a history with them Personalization, memory, continuity, and relationship are often spoken about as though they belong to the same continuum. They are related, but they are not interchangeable. A system can be highly personalized without having any history with the person it is addressing. It could receive a detailed profile, ingest years of records, and immediately tailor its behavior around that information. Such a system might know a remarkable amount about someone while still lacking something fundamental: the history through which those understandings acquired meaning. Shared history changes interpretation. A preference that was imported from a database is not necessarily equivalent to a preference that emerged through conversation, was misunderstood once, clarified later, became relevant during an important decision, and was eventually revised again. The informational content may be similar. The relational meaning is not. This is what I have been describing as relational particularity: the condition in which another participant is encountered not merely as a collection of attributes, but as this particular other whose present meaning has been shaped by what has happened specifically between us. A phrase can become significant because of an earlier conversation. A disagreement can carry meaning because a similar disagreement was repaired before. Silence can mean something different because the system has learned when not to speak. The present encounter becomes partly intelligible through the relationship that precedes it.
No comments yet — start the discussion below.