Computational Hermeneutics: Evaluating generative AI as a cultural technology
Authors: Cody Kommers, Ruth Ahnert, Maria Antoniak, Emmanouil Benetos, Steve Benford, Mercedes Bunz, Baptiste Caramiaux, Shauna Concannon, +30 more
Organizations: The Alan Turing Institute · Queen Mary University of London · University of Colorado · University of Nottingham · King’s College London · Sorbonne Université · Durham University · University of Edinburgh · Dartmouth College · Gibran AI · University of Coventry · Technische Universität Darmstadt · University of Cambridge · McGill University · Cornell University · University of Utah · University of Chicago · Princeton University · London School of Economics · University of Southampton · Rice University · University of Glasgow · Cardiff University · University of Exeter · University of Brighton · The Alan Turing Institute & University of Southampton · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · University College London · University of Sheffield · The Alan Turing Institute & University of Edinburgh
Generative AI systems are increasingly recognized as cultural technologies, yet current evaluation frameworks often treat culture as a variable to be measured rather than fundamental to the system's operation. Drawing on hermeneutic theory from the humanities, we argue that GenAI systems function as "context machines" that must inherently address three interpretive challenges: situatedness (meaning only emerges in context), plurality (multiple valid interpretations coexist), and ambiguity (interpretations naturally conflict). We present computational hermeneutics as an emerging framework offering an interpretive account of what GenAI systems do, and how they might do it better. We offer three principles for hermeneutic evaluation -- that benchmarks should be iterative, not one-off; include people, not just machines; and measure cultural context, not just model output. This perspective offers a nascent paradigm for designing and evaluating contemporary AI systems: shifting from standardized questions about accuracy to contextual ones about meaning.
In measurement theory, instruments do not simply record reality; they help constitute what is observed. The same holds for generative AI evaluation: benchmarks do not just measure, they shape what models appear to be. Functionalist benchmarks treat models as isolated predictors, while prescriptive approaches assess what systems ought to be. Both obscure the sociotechnical processes through which meaning and values are enacted, risking the reification of narrow cultural perspectives in pluralist contexts. This thesis advances a descriptive alternative. It argues that generative AI must be evaluated as a pluralist sociotechnical system and develops Machine-Society-Human (MaSH) Loops, a framework for tracing how models, users, and institutions recursively co-construct meaning and values. Evaluation shifts from judging outputs to examining how values are enacted in interaction. Three contributions follow. Conceptually, MaSH Loops reframes evaluation as recursive, enactive process. Methodologically, the World Values Benchmark introduces a distributional approach grounded in World Values Survey data, structured prompt sets, and anchor-aware scoring. Empirically, the thesis demonstrates these through two cases: value drift in early GPT-3 and sociotechnical evaluation in real estate. A final chapter draws on participatory realism to argue that prompting and evaluation are constitutive interventions, not neutral observations. The thesis argues that static benchmarks are insufficient for generative AI. Responsible evaluation requires pluralist, process-oriented frameworks that make visible whose values are enacted. Evaluation is therefore a site of governance, shaping how AI systems are understood, deployed, and trusted.
Rebecca L. Johnson
The School of History and Philosophy of Science, Faculty of Science The University of Sydney
Evaluating generative AI (GenAI) systems is challenging because many targets of evaluation are broad, contested concepts, such as "reasoning," "fairness," or "creativity." When these concepts are left underspecified, it becomes unclear what should be measured or how evaluation results should be interpreted. This problem reflects a missing step: systematization, that is, moving from a broad background concept to an explicit, structured account of the concept in measurable terms. To help address the fact that systematization is cognitively demanding and resource-intensive, we investigate whether AI assistance can support this process. To enable AI-assisted systematization and assess its quality, we introduce a structured representation of a systematized concept, a concept spec, and a validation worksheet. We then develop two AI-assisted systematizers: a direct, zero-shot approach and a multi-agent approach that more closely mirrors manual systematization approaches from existing literature. We use these systematizers to produce concept specs for two concepts -- hate-based rhetoric and digital empathy -- and evaluate resulting concept specs on content validity and information recoverability.
Generative AI is reshaping the cultural infrastructures through which knowledge is found, synthesized, and held accountable. To make sense of this shift, scholars and policymakers reach for historical analogies of technologies such as the printing press, steam power or electricity. But these comparisons are typically imprecise about which property of the technology carries the comparison, and imprecise analogies produce imprecise governance by designing interventions against the wrong property of the system. This paper offers a diagnostic framework for analyzing how generative AI can transform epistemic and cultural practice. This paper offers a diagnostic framework for analyzing how generative AI can transform epistemic and cultural practice. We decompose each intervention into three coordinates: the epistemic site at which a technology acts, the governing logic by which it organizes its object, and the technical mechanism through which the logic is instantiated. This framework allows us to distinguish between structural cultural consequences, which follow from the mechanism itself, from contingent ones, which remain open to design and institutional choice. Applying the framework to information discovery and knowledge synthesis, we show how the shift from indexicality to inference and from editorial authority to statistical consensus produces specific, traceable cultural effects and reveals governance levers that gestalt analogy obscures.