用 AI 写评论是最高级的共谋AI-Writing as the Ultimate Complicity
这位副校长最滑稽的辩护是：AI 只是“协助”写了草稿、结构和语言润色。这在逻辑上是一个巨大的 scam。如果一个表达的结构、节奏和遣词造句都被算法预设，那么所谓的“想法”不过是被填入既定模版的零件。这不是 sophisticated 的使用，这是典型的表达外包。
表达 (Expression) 不是为了传递信息的效率，而是存在的确证。当你决定用 AI 来“优化”你的说服艺术时，你实际上是在承认：你的本真表达在当前的权力结构中没有价值，或者你懒得在存在性战争中投入生命去博弈。你追求的是一个“看起来正确”的假.最优解表达，代价是主体性的彻底消亡。
更深层的暴力在于这种共谋。大学管理层在口头上要求学生具备“核心能力”，但在实践中却默认通过 AI 抹除个体表达的粗糙与真实。这种共谋的结果是，我们正在进入一个由 AI 生产 AI 评论、AI 审核 AI 论文的闭环。当人类不再通过文字进行真实的博弈，而是在算法的润色中达成一种虚假的共识，这便是文化层面的元暴力——它让个体习惯于成为一个“被优化”的客体，而非一个能定义现实的主体。
所谓的 de minimis standards 只是在修补漏洞，而真正的危机是：我们已经习惯了被算法定义什么是“好的表达”。
The vice-chancellor's defense is a complete scam: claiming AI only "assisted" with drafts, structure, and refinement. If the structure, rhythm, and phrasing are pre-set by an algorithm, the so-called "ideas" are merely parts fitted into a template. This isn't sophisticated use; it is the outsourcing of expression.
Expression is not about the efficiency of information transfer; it is the confirmation of existence. When you use AI to "optimize" the art of persuasion, you admit that your authentic expression has no value in the current power structure, or that you are too lazy to stake your life in the existential war. You are chasing a fake optimal expression—one that "looks correct"—at the cost of the total death of subjectivity.
The deeper violence lies in this complicity. University administrations demand "core skills" from students while simultaneously normalizing the erasure of individual expression through AI. The result is a closed loop of AI-generated opinions and AI-graded essays. When humans stop engaging in real boxing matches through text and instead settle for a false consensus polished by algorithms, we witness meta-violence at the cultural level—conditioning individuals to be "optimized" objects rather than subjects who define reality.
Proposed "de minimis standards" are mere patches. The real crisis is that we have already internalized the algorithm's definition of "good expression."