ENKO中
Playing HeavenAI로 근세 신유학의 다양한 세계를 다시 그리기

방법론

이 페이지의 한국어판은 준비 중입니다. 영어판을 표시합니다.

Multilingual Intellectual History

Historical accounts tend to privilege a dominant and prestigious written language, even though multilingualism was and continues to be an ordinary condition of human life. In early modern East Asia, Neo-Confucian scholarship circulated principally in Literary Sinitic, but its dissemination and reception involved multiple linguistic communities, literary forms, and sociopolitical settings.

The multilingual capabilities of LLMs extend well beyond the reach of any individual historian, allowing us to recover, connect, and compare historical sources in Manchu, vernacular Chinese, and various forms of Literary Sinitic, including those practised in Korea. This work provides a basis for wider perspectives involving Japan, Okinawa, Vietnam, and Jesuit scholarship.

From the Manchu page to the Chinese, word by wordThree stations: a window on page 35 of the Manchu Great Learning with the words the OCR run found boxed; the Manchu transcribed as a column of words, amba tacin i doro, genggiyen erdemu be genggiyelere de bi; and the Chinese 大學之道在明明德 beside it, each word tied to the characters it translates.大學之道在明明德

Reintegrating Scholarly Traditions

In early modern East Asia, literature, moral philosophy, and philology were overlapping scholarly pursuits, with individual scholars placing different emphases on each. Modern academic divisions, however, treat them as distinct fields of inquiry.

Our computational research environments, Pivot 機 and Traces 跡, employ specialized AI agents to bring literary, philosophical, and philological developments into an integrated field of view.

Pivot 機Beta Traces 跡Alpha

Three overlapping pursuits, parted by modern divisions, brought into one field of viewSchematic. Three overlapping lenses labelled Literary History, Philosophy and Philology, with scholars as dots, most standing where the lenses overlap and leaning to one or another; two hard vertical rules cut the field into three, the modern divisions. When our approach appears the rules recede and one dashed lapis frame encloses all three lenses.Literary HistoryPhilosophyPhilology

Agentic Knowledge Distillation

Intellectual history requires moving from individual passages and debates to larger formations such as schools of thought and literary and aesthetic movements. We also need to factor in that some scholars pursued forms of semiotics that questioned the a priori existence of fixed concepts. A further consideration is the contribution of thousands of lesser-known scholars who participated in the formation, development, and dissemination of these intellectual and cultural traditions.

We organize specialized AI agents in a research pipeline our team has developed, which we call agentic knowledge distillation. The agents analyse passages, synthesize higher-order interpretations of essays, and simulate debates among scholars. Each successive layer remains linked to the underlying records, allowing historians to examine the evidence at every interpretive level.

Agentic knowledge distillation is integrated into our Pivot 機 research environment.

Pivot 機Beta

From a passage to a formation, and backSchematic. A passage, the essay it is in, the author's writings, and a formation: tiles of an author's peers with a formation drawn across them in dashed lapis. With our approach, a lapis line returns from the formation to the passage.

Understanding and Evaluating Machine Interpretation

LLMs can now produce interpretation-like readings of primary sources and secondary scholarship, extending the possibilities of computational hermeneutics beyond earlier approaches centred on word frequencies and semantic drift. The trade-off is that we know little about how models generate these sophisticated outputs. Evaluating model performance presents a further difficulty, since interpretive tasks involve a range of plausible responses rather than a single right or wrong answer.

We are currently experimenting with persona-vector steering, sparse autoencoders, and contrastive embedding models for literary-style analysis. We are also exploring evaluation methods involving expert focus groups and comparisons of outputs generated by multiple models, with particular attention paid to whether the machine interpretations are plausible, supported by historical evidence, and defensible against alternative readings.

A model's layers, the readings it gives, and the readings judged against the sourceSchematic: a stack of a model's layers with one marked in lapis, and three short readings leaving to the right, two solid and competing, with opposed arrows between them, and one dashed. With our approach an arrow enters the marked layer, an intervention, and a source stands at the right: the two readings are tied to it, and the dashed one's tie ends in a cross, contradicted by the source. It represents the question, not a result.