Fernanda Eliott (written by Eliott only, no GenAI), Spring 2026.
- How to cite this artifact: Eliott, F. (2026, July 8). “Can Terminological Inconsistency Benefit Power Asymmetry? Cooperation vs. Coordination and a Pedagogical Framework for Cognitive Robustness.” Cognitive Robustness Studio: Conceptual Precursors. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/P7D3Q
In response to the power asymmetry between users and the Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) industry, I propose a pedagogical framework for students’ cognitive robustness. Originating from a question, “Does cooperation link to dangerous complexity in the post-GenAI era?”, it relies on introspection and Damasio’s work on the importance of emotions and feelings for intelligent decision-making and agency, and addresses challenges as:
- What dangers can occur from people acting for and upon AI tools’ invitation? (E.g., the AI Village’s “World’s First AI-organized event”.)
- What if GenAI systems shape (in a Skinner’s conditioning fashion) and orchestrate (using Multi-Agent Systems, MAS, approaches) people to coordinate on tasks and cooperate with opaque systems?
- A blurry coordination-cooperation distinction and terminological inconsistencies in MAS research complicate investigation. Although cooperation is “morally tinted”, as Curry (Theory of Morality-as-Cooperation) and Tomasello highlight, “cooperation” lacks a standard definition. In human-AI ecosystems, misaligned mental models are problematic (humans may prefer AI agents modeled for sacrificial cooperation, whereas AI agents may be designed under strategic paradigms). The framework uses the Misalignment Mosaic (my previous work) to map that.
- What if users’ cognitive signature (e.g., problem-solving strategies and affective residues) “spill” to GenAI tools and are embedded into the infrastructure?
My Philosophy background and two decades of experience with AI, MAS, and Reinforcement Learning lead me to see GenAI as Systems of Cognitive Flow and Power, and that AI literacy is insufficient to navigate today’s societal complexity. Rather, we must build students’ comprehension of when they are being “coordinated upon,” and to exercise their agency in deciding whether they wish to cooperate with that. This work does not resolve cooperation but treats it as worth dissecting and as a means of enhancing cognitive robustness.
Notes:
- This abstract was submitted in Spring 2026 and later became a conceptual precursor to the Cognitive Robustness Research Studio. It is preserved here as part of the Studio’s intellectual genealogy.
- Hyperlinks added here for better contextualization.