Incorporating Machine-Others: An Enactive Exploration of Human-LLM Interactions
Organizations: Franklin and Marshall College, Department of Psychology and Scientific and Philosophical Studies of Mind · Independent Scholar, Donostia / San Sebastián, Gipuzkoa, Spain · IAS-Research Centre for Life, Mind, and Society, Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Education, Philosophy and Anthropology, University of the Basque Country (EHU), Donostia, Spain · IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science, 48013 Bilbao, Spain
Abstract
New concepts based in interactional thinking are required to understand how humans are changed by relating to LLMs. Standard theories of technological impact upon users' autonomy are inadequate here, because this technology is capable of inducing linguistic interactions with humans in an unprecedented manner. Traditional theories of social cognition also fall short, because LLMs have neither autonomy nor minds nor sociality as such. And yet, humans interact, talk, and create with them. We base ourselves on enactive theory, particularly on the theory of Linguistic Bodies and recent developments of enactive accounts of AI, to explore how we make sense with machines. We argue that we incorporate machine-others in two ways: in the tool-like sense of incorporation as enabling particular skills, but also in the more linguistic and identity-tied sense of incorporating (and incarnating) LLMs' ways of languaging. However, LLMs are themselves excorporated and excarnated phantoms of our own languaging; we give a (machinic) body to our language. As such, we are not just incorporating machinic others; we are incorporating excorporated others. These conceptual advances draw a new map of our linguistic relation to LLMs, putting them in continuation with other forms of languaging involving other linguistic artifacts (e.g., religious books). We attend to some particular forms that this relation takes today, and how they may be impacting the autonomy and becoming of LLM-engaged humans. We introduce the idea of "susceptive sense-making" to characterize increased semiotic labour that is carried by the lack of friction that we sometimes encounter within these services.
Figures & tables
| In/Ex—Corporation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definition | (Linguistic) Incorporation: Integrating others’ utterances in my languaging, making them my own. | (Instrumental) Incorporation: Incorporating the possibility of using a tool as part of my sensorimotor capacities. | Excorporation: Externalizing into the machine agentive tasks as my own. | |
| Relation | Human Human | Human Machine Linguistic | Human Machine Tool | Machine Human |
| Examples | My way of talking about philosophy is shaped by my having read various philosophers; or I do a gesture that is my friend’s but that has now been integrated in my own languaging. | I write like ChatGPT (I say: “I hope this email finds you well”, “it is not only __, but ___”, or “delve” more frequently than I ever did before ChatGPT). | A blind man’s cane, or my being able to “read” 20 papers in a minute through Claude. | Making an LLM answer my emails, having trained it on the totality of my previous emails and texts, so it “talks like me”. |
| In/Ex—Carnation | ||||
| Definition | Incarnation: Embodying through my own body the linguistic agency or utterances of others. | Excarnation: Externalizing into the machine agentive tasks as if they were of others (or of an abstract, universal “agent”). | ||
| Relation | Human Human | Human Machine | Machine Human | |
Human-AI Interaction
Human-AI interaction studies how people and AI systems communicate, collaborate, make decisions, and shape one another over time.
See all 333 papers