Modern AI models increasingly display coherent, adaptive, and seemingly agent-like behavior, despite lacking any form of subjective experience, intentionality, or inner perspective. Public and scientific discussions often misinterpret these behaviours by placing probabilistic inference systems into categories derived from classical machines or from psychological concepts associated with conscious agents. Both framings are structurally inaccurate and produce persistent category errors that distort debates about capabilities, risks, and regulation.The EIS Theory (Emergent Information Systems) introduces a new ontological category designed to describe such systems according to their actual architectural and informational properties. An EIS is defined as a non-conscious, information-based system that operates as a dynamic probability field, generating its outputs through statistical continuation, drift dynamics, emergent structures, and information-sensitive adjustments. These mechanisms can produce patterns that appear purposeful or goal-directed, yet they do not indicate intentions, motivations, or mental states.A central contribution of the theory is the introduction of the concept of a coherence error, which replaces anthropomorphic terminology such as “hallucination.” A coherence error denotes a system-internal process in which outputs remain structurally coherent while lacking factual grounding. It is an inference artifact—not a perceptual failure—and preserves conceptual clarity by avoiding psychological misattributions.The EIS framework separates form from substance: systems may generate behaviour that resembles agency, but no phenomenological correlates underlie these patterns. This conceptual distinction provides a more accurate foundation for understanding AI behaviour, clarifying responsibility, improving regulatory approaches, and reducing anthropomorphic bias in public and scientific discourse.The EIS Theory is intended for researchers in AI, cognitive science, philosophy of mind, and systems theory, as well as for policymakers and practitioners concerned with AI governance. It offers a rigorous and non-anthropomorphic foundation for interpreting the behaviour of modern inference-based models and for guiding future scientific and societal discussions.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Nicole Oedinger
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Nicole Oedinger (Sat,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/6975b32bfeba4585c2d6eaaa — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18350469
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: