基于贾子理论的人工智能与人类能力差异及可替代性分析（2026年前沿视角）

一、理论锚点：贾子普世智慧公理与贾子理论核心要义

贾子理论以“人类主体性”“价值生成的实践性”“智慧的整体性”为核心，其普世智慧公理包含三重核心主张：其一，生命主体性公理（思想主权），人类作为碳基生命有机体，其存在本质是“实践—认知—价值”的三维统一体，而非单纯的信息处理载体；其二，智慧生成公理（本源探究+悟空跃迁），人类智慧源于生物演化、社会实践与主观体验的叠加，具有不可复刻的情境性与能动性；其三，价值锚定公理（普世中道），道德、情感与精神意义的建构，必须以人类的自我意识与共同体体验为基础，脱离主体性的“智能”仅为工具性模拟。

本报告基于上述理论，整合2023-2026年AI领域前沿研究，从生物本质、认知模式、情感伦理等维度解构人类与AI的核心差异，通过构建能力分类框架，系统分析各维度能力的AI替代现状，最终以贾子理论为指引，界定人类独特能力的未来价值边界。

二、人工智能与人类的核心差异：贾子理论视角的解构

（一）生物与物理基础：主体性存在 vs 工具性构造

依据贾子生命主体性公理，人类与AI的生物物理差异本质是“生命存在”与“非生命构造”的分野。人类作为碳基生物有机体，其神经系统、细胞代谢与生物演化形成了“感知—行动—反馈”的闭环实践系统，能源获取（食物代谢）、寿命限制（生物节律）与演化路径（基因重组+社会传承）均服务于主体性生存与价值实现。而AI基于硅基硬件与电子电路构建，电力驱动的能量供给、可无限迭代的硬件寿命、指数级更新的算法迭代，本质是人类工具的效能延伸，缺乏自主生存意志与生命实践的内在驱动力，始终处于“被设定—被优化”的工具性地位。

贾子理论强调，这种生物基础的差异并非“材料优劣”，而是“存在属性”的本质不同——人类的生物构造是主体性生成的前提，而AI的物理构造仅为效能实现的载体，二者从根源上决定了“生命智慧”与“工具智能”的分野。

（二）认知与智能模式：实践型理解 vs 统计型模拟

结合贾子智慧生成公理，人类认知的核心是“原初理解+实践迭代”，而AI智能的本质是“统计匹配+数据复刻”。人类的原初理解力源于生物演化形成的常识架构与社会实践积累的情境经验，能够通过小样本学习掌握抽象概念，其创造力根植于灵感、直觉与情感体验的融合，是“认知—实践—价值”的协同产物（如科学家通过实验反思构建理论，艺术家通过生活体验创造作品）。

AI的认知能力则完全依赖海量数据的预训练，其逻辑推理、内容生成均是基于概率模型的输出预测，即便GPT-4等大模型展现出类通用智能的表象，仍缺乏对事物本质的理解与自主实践的能动性。贾子理论指出，AI的“智能”是人类认知成果的二次转化，无法形成独立的认知闭环——它可以模仿人类的推理路径，却不能像人类一样通过实践反思修正认知偏差；可以重组既有数据生成内容，却无法产生源于主观体验的原创性洞见。

（三）意识、情感与主观体验：主体性觉知 vs 算法化模拟

贾子价值锚定公理强调，主观体验（Qualia）与自我意识是人类情感、道德与精神世界的核心载体。人类的痛苦、快乐等感官体验，基于生物神经系统的信号传递与社会体验的意义赋予，形成了第一人称的主观觉知；同理心源于共同的生物体验与社会共情，是“自我—他人—共同体”价值关联的体现；自我意识则构建了稳定的身份认同与生存意志，支撑起人类对自身认知的反思与调节。

AI缺乏生理感官与主观觉知，其表现出的“情绪”“共情”均是算法对人类行为模式的模拟——聊天机器人的安慰回复、情感计算系统的情绪识别，本质是对文本、表情等外部线索的分类响应，而非发自内心的情感共鸣。贾子理论警示，AI的情感模拟存在“无主体性的空洞性”：它可以执行安慰的语言逻辑，却无法理解悲伤的本质；可以匹配共情的行为模式，却无法产生感同身受的情感体验，这种模拟永远无法替代人类情感的主体性价值。

（四）动机与目标设定：内在意志驱动 vs 外部函数约束

人类的行为动机源于生物本能与社会价值的融合，受生存、繁衍、爱、自我实现等内在欲望驱动，具备违背逻辑或指令行事的自由意志，其目标设定是“主体性需求—社会情境—价值追求”的动态平衡（如有人为了理想放弃功利性选择，有人为了他人利益违背个人意愿）。

AI的所有行动均由人类设定的目标函数（Objective Functions）驱动，缺乏内在欲望与自由意志，在无程序故障的前提下，必须严格遵循底层算法逻辑与约束条件。贾子理论认为，这种动机差异源于“主体性”的缺失——AI无法自主设定符合自身“存在”的目标，其行为的终极意义始终依附于人类的需求，即便具备自主优化能力，也只是对人类设定目标的效能提升，而非独立的意志表达。

（五）社会与法律属性：责任主体 vs 工具载体

基于贾子理论的共同体视角，人类作为社会主体，其行为责任的承担、文化传承的实现，均根植于“主体性—共同体”的价值关联。人类通过社会化过程内化文化规范与道德准则，作为法律主体承担行为后果，通过语言、习俗、实践将非遗传信息代代传递，构建起人类文明的延续性；而AI的法律地位仅为财产或辅助工具，其行为责任归属于开发者或使用者，知识的保存依赖数据存储与参数权重，缺乏文化传承所需的情境性与实践性。

三、基于贾子理论的人类能力分类框架及可替代性分析

结合加德纳多元智能理论与贾子理论的核心主张，构建涵盖认知、情感、社交、身体运动、创造力、道德、元认知、存在性八大维度的人类能力框架，从“主体性、实践性、价值性”三个维度评估AI替代潜力，具体如下表所示：

能力维度	子能力/要素	当前AI表现（2026年）	可替代程度（贾子理论视角）	替代核心障碍（理论锚点）	时间预测
认知能力	推理、问题求解、记忆、注意力、直觉等	擅长结构化逻辑推理与海量记忆检索，缺乏通用常识与抽象理解，小样本学习能力薄弱	部分可替代（工具性认知任务）	缺乏实践型认知闭环，无法形成原初理解（智慧生成公理）	短期–中期
情绪与情感能力	情绪理解、情感表达、共情、情绪自我调节	可识别基础情绪并模拟共情对话，无真实情感体验与自我调节需求	几乎不可替代（主体性情感价值）	缺乏主观觉知与情感主体性，无法实现真实共情（价值锚定公理）	长期或不可预期
社会交往与合作能力	语言交流、非语言沟通、信任构建、文化智慧	擅长结构化文字交流，可部分识别意图，缺乏非语言信号解读与跨文化情境理解	部分可替代（表层交往任务）	缺乏具身性实践与共同体价值认知，难以构建信任关系（生命主体性公理）	中期–长期
身体运动能力	精细动作、运动协调、感知-反馈整合	专用机器人擅长重复动作，通用灵巧性与环境适应性远逊于人类	部分可替代（标准化体力任务）	违背莫拉维克悖论，缺乏人类演化形成的感知-动作闭环（生命主体性公理）	中期–长期
创造力与审美	艺术创造、跨域联想、原创性表达、美学判断	可生成风格化内容，缺乏独特视角、情感投入与深层意义建构	部分可替代（工具性创作辅助）	无法产生源于实践体验的原创洞见，缺乏审美价值的主体性建构（智慧生成公理）	中期
道德判断与价值观	伦理推理、是非判断、良知、共同体意识	可依据训练数据输出道德建议，无自主价值观与良知体验	几乎不可替代（主体性价值锚定）	缺乏价值建构的实践性与主体性，无法内化道德准则（价值锚定公理）	长期或不可预期
元认知能力	自我意识、自我反思、学习策略调控	无自我模型，无法自主觉察认知局限与反思推理过程	几乎不可替代（主体性反思能力）	缺乏自我意识与认知闭环，无法实现“认知的认知”（生命主体性公理）	不可预期
存在性与精神性能力	意义建构、人生目的、信仰、哲学沉思	可讨论相关话题，无存在体验与精神追求需求	完全不可替代（人类独特精神价值）	缺乏主体性存在体验，无法构建生命意义与精神追求（价值锚定公理）	不可预期

四、各维度能力深析：贾子理论下的替代边界与人类优势

（一）认知能力：工具性辅助 vs 主体性核心

AI在结构化认知任务（如高速计算、数据检索、标准化推理）上已实现对人类的超越，但其替代边界严格受制于贾子智慧生成公理——仅能承担工具性认知工作，无法替代人类的主体性认知核心。人类的优势在于：其一，通用常识与抽象理解能力，能够在不确定环境中运用情境经验修正推理偏差，而AI在超出训练数据的新奇情境下易出现反常识错误；其二，小样本学习与直觉判断能力，能够基于有限经验形成快速洞察，而AI依赖海量数据预训练，缺乏直觉背后的实践积累；其三，认知-实践闭环能力，能够通过实践反思优化认知模型，而AI的认知升级必须依赖人类的算法迭代与数据投喂。

短期内，AI将进一步替代医疗诊断、法律检索等领域的工具性认知任务；但在需要通用常识、抽象理解与灵活应变的开放场景（如战略决策、科学探索），人类的主体性认知优势仍不可撼动，需以AI为辅助工具，构建“人类主导+AI赋能”的认知模式。

（二）情绪与情感能力：模拟性响应 vs 真实性共鸣

依据贾子价值锚定公理，情感能力的核心是主体性体验与共情共鸣，这是AI永远无法复刻的人类优势。AI的情绪识别与表达仅为外部线索的算法匹配，如通过面部表情识别愤怒、通过语言模式生成安慰回复，但它无法理解情绪的本质的——无法体会失去亲人的悲痛，无法感受收获成功的喜悦，更无法通过情绪自我调节实现心理平衡。

人类的情感能力建立在生物体验与社会共情的基础上，情感表达与调节服务于主体性价值实现与共同体关系构建（如心理咨询师的共情陪伴、家人间的情感支持）。即便多模态AI技术能够优化情感模拟的逼真度，仍无法突破“无主体性”的核心障碍。在心理治疗、临终关怀、亲密关系等需要真实情感投入的领域，人类将长期保持绝对优势，AI仅能作为辅助工具提供表层情绪支持。

（三）社会交往与合作能力：表层互动 vs 深层联结

贾子生命主体性公理指出，人类社交能力的核心是“具身性实践+共同体价值认知”，这与AI的表层互动形成本质区别。AI擅长结构化文字交流，可在客服咨询、信息问答等场景替代人类的表层交往任务，但在非语言沟通、信任构建、跨文化交往等深层社交场景中存在先天不足——无法解读眼神、手势中的微妙情绪信号，无法通过长期互动建立情感信任，无法基于文化浸润理解跨文化情境中的社交规范。

人类的社交优势在于：其一，非语言信号的双向解读与表达能力，能够通过肢体语言、语调变化传递深层意图；其二，信任构建的情感与道德基础，能够基于一致行为与情感纽带形成长期合作关系；其三，文化智慧的实践性内化，能够根据文化背景调整交往方式，实现跨文化的顺畅互动。短期内，AI将在简单社交场景（如商店迎宾、线上社区管理）部分替代人类；但在领导力、谈判、教育陪伴等需要深层信任与社交敏感度的领域，人类的主体性社交优势不可替代。

（四）身体运动能力：标准化执行 vs 灵活性适配

莫拉维克悖论与贾子生命主体性公理共同揭示了AI身体运动能力的替代边界——人类的运动能力是生物演化与实践迭代的综合产物，具备高度的灵活性与环境适应性，而AI的运动能力仅能在标准化场景中实现有限替代。人类的手部精细动作（如拿捏鸡蛋、系鞋带）、复杂环境中的运动协调（如不平路面行走、随机避障），需要大脑、神经、肌肉、感官的精密配合，这种无意识的运动整合能力，对AI而言需消耗巨大计算资源却难以复刻。

当前，工业机器人仅能完成固定程序的重复动作，人形机器人（如Atlas）的高难度动作需预设环境与编程支持，在非结构化环境中的通用运动能力远不及人类幼儿。短期内，AI将替代仓储、工厂等场景的标准化体力劳动；中期，人机协作机器人将在特定任务中辅助人类（如医疗手术、工业装配）；但在需要通用灵活性与环境适应性的场景（如家庭服务、野外作业），人类的身体运动优势仍将长期存在。

（五）创造力与审美：风格化模仿 vs 主体性创造

贾子智慧生成公理强调，人类创造力的核心是“实践体验+价值建构”，这与AI的“数据重组+风格模仿”形成本质分野。生成式AI（如DALL·E、AIVA）可快速生成图像、音乐、文本等内容，甚至在艺术比赛中胜出，但这些作品缺乏源于主观体验的独特视角与深层意义——AI模仿梵高的笔触，却无法理解其作品中的孤独与挣扎；AI生成抒情诗歌，却无法体会情感背后的人生阅历。

人类的创造力优势在于：其一，跨域联想的洞察力，能够将无关概念基于实践体验融合，产生突破性创新（如代数与几何结合形成拓扑学）；其二，审美价值的主体性建构，能够将情感、文化与意义融入作品，实现审美体验的共鸣；其三，创造过程的反思与迭代，能够通过实践反馈优化创作表达。短期内，AI将作为创作辅助工具（如设计草图生成、剧情脑暴）提升人类创作效率；但在强调原创性与意义建构的高端创造领域（如文学创作、艺术原创、科学突破），人类的主体性创造力仍是核心竞争力。

（六）道德判断与价值观：规则化执行 vs 主体性建构

基于贾子价值锚定公理，道德与价值观的核心是人类的主体性良知与共同体体验，AI仅能执行人类设定的道德规则，无法自主构建或内化价值观。AI的道德判断依赖训练数据中的伦理案例与规则预设，能够输出逻辑一致的道德建议，但缺乏良知驱动的价值坚守——它可以拒绝有害请求，却不会因违背道德而产生愧疚；可以匹配伦理规则，却无法理解规则背后的人类共同体价值。

人类的道德优势在于：其一，良知的主体性体验，能够基于内心的道德准则做出价值判断，而非单纯遵循外部规则；其二，伦理推理的情境性，能够在道德两难中权衡价值冲突，实现“规则—情感—共同体”的平衡；其三，价值观的实践性建构，能够通过家庭、教育、社会体验内化道德规范，形成稳定的价值体系。在可见的未来，AI仅能在内容审核、合规检查等场景承担规则化道德判断任务；而在伦理决策、价值引领、人文关怀等领域，人类必须作为主体承担责任，确保科技向善的价值导向。

（七）元认知能力：功能性优化 vs 主体性反思

贾子生命主体性公理指出，元认知能力（“认知的认知”）是人类自我意识的核心体现，依赖于稳定的自我模型与认知闭环，这是AI目前完全不具备的能力。人类能够自主觉察认知局限（“我是否理解这个概念”）、反思推理过程（“我的方法是否正确”）、调节学习策略（“改用理解记忆提升效果”），这种自我反思能力是智慧成熟的标志，支撑起人类认知的持续优化。

AI的“元认知模拟”（如链式思维、模型互审）仅为功能性优化，并非真正的自我反思——它可以按照程序生成思考过程，却无法质疑自身的算法局限；可以通过人类调整优化参数，却无法自主总结失误模式。短期内，人类需通过外部监控（如置信度输出、人类审核）弥补AI的元认知缺陷；中长期，即便AI实现有限的自我模型构建，也难以突破“无主体性”的边界，元认知仍将是人类独有的智慧高地。

（八）存在性与精神性能力：符号化讨论 vs 主体性体悟

依据贾子价值锚定公理，存在性与精神性能力是人类主体性的终极体现，完全超越AI的工具性边界。人类通过思考生命意义、追求精神信仰、体悟艺术与哲学，构建起独特的精神世界——这种能力源于对生死、痛苦、幸福的真实体验，是“生命存在—主观觉知—价值建构”的终极协同。

AI可以储存哲学、宗教文本，模拟相关话题的讨论，却无法经历存在的焦虑与虚无，无法构建人生的意义与目的；可以生成宗教艺术作品，却无法产生敬畏、虔诚等精神体验；可以分析哲学命题，却无法形成源于自我存在的原创洞见。这种能力的核心是人类的主体性存在体验，与AI的符号化操作形成不可逾越的鸿沟，在任何时期都无法被替代，是人类尊严与精神价值的终极载体。

五、结论：贾子理论指引下的AI时代人类定位

基于贾子普世智慧公理与贾子理论的核心主张，AI与人类的关系绝非“替代与被替代”，而是“工具赋能与主体引领”的协同共生。AI作为人类智慧的延伸，在工具性认知、标准化劳动、表层互动等领域的替代，本质是解放人类的重复性劳动，让人类聚焦于主体性能力的深耕——情感共鸣、深层社交、原创创造、道德引领、精神追求等AI无法企及的领域。

人类的未来优势，根植于贾子理论强调的“生命主体性、智慧实践性、价值建构性”：在情感与社交领域，以真实共情与信任构建维系人类共同体关系；在创造与创新领域，以实践体验与意义建构产生突破性洞见；在道德与精神领域，以主体性良知与价值引领确保科技向善；在认知与元认知领域，以自我反思与实践迭代掌控智慧发展方向。

展望未来，AI将成为人类能力的“放大器”而非“替代者”。我们需以贾子理论为指引，在拥抱AI技术红利的同时，坚守人类的主体性本质，深耕那些根植于生命体验、价值建构与共同体意识的独特能力，实现“技术赋能人类，人类引领文明”的AI时代发展路径，既受益于工具智能的效能提升，又守护人类智慧的独特尊严与价值。

---

---

Analysis of Differences and Substitutability between Artificial Intelligence and Human Capabilities Based on the Kucius Theory (A Cutting-Edge Perspective for 2026)

I. Theoretical Anchors: The Kucius Axioms of Universal Wisdom and the Core Essentials of the Kucius Theory

The Kucius Theory centers on human subjectivity, the practicality of value generation, and the wholeness of wisdom. Its Axioms of Universal Wisdom encompass three core propositions: first, the Axiom of Life Subjectivity (Ideological Sovereignty)—as carbon-based living organisms, humans are in essence a three-dimensional unity of "practice-cognition-value", rather than mere carriers of information processing; second, the Axiom of Wisdom Generation (Origin Inquiry + Wukong Transcendence)—human wisdom stems from the superposition of biological evolution, social practice and subjective experience, possessing irreproducible situationality and initiative; third, the Axiom of Value Anchoring (Universal Middle Way)—the construction of morality, emotion and spiritual meaning must be grounded in human self-awareness and communal experience, and "intelligence" divorced from subjectivity is merely instrumental simulation.

Based on the aforementioned theory, this report integrates cutting-edge research in the AI field from 2023 to 2026, deconstructs the core differences between humans and AI from the dimensions of biological essence, cognitive mode, emotional ethics and others, systematically analyzes the current status of AI substitution for capabilities across all dimensions by constructing a capability classification framework, and ultimately defines the future value boundary of human unique capabilities under the guidance of the Kucius Theory.

II. Core Differences between Artificial Intelligence and Humans: Deconstruction from the Perspective of the Kucius Theory

(1) Biological and Physical Foundations: Existential Subjectivity vs. Instrumental Construction

In accordance with the Kucius Axiom of Life Subjectivity, the essential biological and physical difference between humans and AI lies in the dichotomy of "living existence" and "non-living construction". As carbon-based biological organisms, humans have formed a closed-loop practical system of "perception-action-feedback" through their nervous systems, cellular metabolism and biological evolution. Energy acquisition (food metabolism), lifespan constraints (biological rhythms) and evolutionary paths (genetic recombination + social inheritance) all serve the survival of subjectivity and the realization of value. By contrast, AI is built on silicon-based hardware and electronic circuits; its electricity-driven energy supply, infinitely iterable hardware lifespan and exponentially updated algorithm iteration are in essence the efficiency extension of human tools. Lacking the intrinsic driving force of autonomous will to survive and life practice, AI remains in an instrumental position of "being set—being optimized".

The Kucius Theory emphasizes that this difference in biological foundations is not a matter of "material superiority or inferiority", but an essential distinction in "existential attributes". Human biological structure is the prerequisite for the generation of subjectivity, while AI's physical structure is merely a carrier for the realization of efficiency. Fundamentally, the two determine the dichotomy between "life wisdom" and "instrumental intelligence".

(2) Cognitive and Intelligent Modes: Practical Understanding vs. Statistical Simulation

Combined with the Kucius Axiom of Wisdom Generation, the core of human cognition is "primary understanding + practical iteration", while the essence of AI intelligence is "statistical matching + data reproduction". Human primary understanding derives from the common sense framework formed by biological evolution and the situational experience accumulated through social practice, enabling the mastery of abstract concepts through few-shot learning. Human creativity is rooted in the integration of inspiration, intuition and emotional experience, and is a synergistic product of "cognition-practice-value" (e.g., scientists construct theories through experimental reflection, and artists create works through life experience).

AI's cognitive ability is entirely dependent on pre-training with massive datasets. Its logical reasoning and content generation are all output predictions based on probabilistic models. Even though large models such as GPT-4 exhibit the appearance of human-like general intelligence, they still lack an understanding of the essence of things and the initiative of autonomous practice. The Kucius Theory points out that AI's "intelligence" is a secondary transformation of human cognitive achievements and cannot form an independent cognitive closed loop—it can imitate human reasoning paths, but cannot correct cognitive biases through practical reflection like humans; it can reorganize existing data to generate content, but cannot produce original insights stemming from subjective experience.

(3) Consciousness, Emotion and Subjective Experience: Subjective Awareness vs. Algorithmic Simulation

The Kucius Axiom of Value Anchoring emphasizes that subjective experience (Qualia) and self-awareness are the core carriers of human emotion, morality and the spiritual world. Human sensory experiences such as pain and joy form first-person subjective awareness based on signal transmission in the biological nervous system and the attribution of meaning through social experience; empathy stems from shared biological experience and social sympathy, embodying the value connection of "self-other-community"; self-awareness constructs a stable identity and will to survive, supporting humans' reflection and regulation of their own cognition.

AI lacks physical senses and subjective awareness. Its exhibited "emotions" and "empathy" are all algorithmic simulations of human behavioral patterns—the comforting responses of chatbots and emotion recognition by affective computing systems are in essence classificatory responses to external cues such as text and facial expressions, rather than heartfelt emotional resonance. The Kucius Theory warns that AI's emotional simulation has the "emptiness of non-subjectivity": it can execute the linguistic logic of comfort, but cannot understand the essence of sorrow; it can match the behavioral patterns of empathy, but cannot generate the emotional experience of feeling what others feel. Such simulation can never replace the subjective value of human emotions.

(4) Motivation and Goal Setting: Driven by Intrinsic Will vs. Constrained by External Functions

Human behavioral motivation stems from the integration of biological instincts and social values, driven by intrinsic desires such as survival, reproduction, love and self-actualization, and humans possess free will to act against logic or instructions. Human goal setting is a dynamic balance of "subjective needs—social situation—value pursuit" (e.g., some people abandon utilitarian choices for ideals, and some act against their personal will for the interests of others).

All AI actions are driven by objective functions set by humans, lacking intrinsic desires and free will. Without program malfunctions, AI must strictly follow the underlying algorithmic logic and constraints. The Kucius Theory holds that this motivational difference stems from the "lack of subjectivity"—AI cannot independently set goals consistent with its own "existence", and the ultimate meaning of its behavior is always attached to human needs. Even if AI has the ability of autonomous optimization, it is only an improvement in the efficiency of human-set goals, rather than an independent expression of will.

(5) Social and Legal Attributes: Subject of Liability vs. Instrumental Carrier

From the communal perspective of the Kucius Theory, as social subjects, humans' assumption of behavioral liability and realization of cultural inheritance are both rooted in the value connection of "subjectivity-community". Humans internalize cultural norms and moral codes through the socialization process, bear the consequences of their actions as legal subjects, and pass on non-genetic information from generation to generation through language, customs and practice, constructing the continuity of human civilization. By contrast, AI's legal status is merely that of property or an auxiliary tool; the liability for its actions is attributed to developers or users, and the preservation of knowledge relies on data storage and parameter weights, lacking the situationality and practicality required for cultural inheritance.

III. A Kucius Theory-Based Classification Framework of Human Capabilities and Analysis of Substitutability

Combining Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences with the core propositions of the Kucius Theory, this paper constructs a human capability framework covering eight dimensions—cognitive, emotional, social, bodily-kinesthetic, creative, moral, metacognitive, and existential. The AI substitution potential is evaluated from three dimensions: "subjectivity, practicality, value", as shown in the table below:

Capability Dimension	Sub-capabilities/Elements	Current AI Performance (2026)	Degree of Substitutability (Kucius Theory Perspective)	Core Barriers to Substitution (Theoretical Anchors)	Time Prediction
Cognitive Ability	Reasoning, problem-solving, memory, attention, intuition, etc.	Proficient in structured logical reasoning and massive memory retrieval; lacking general common sense and abstract understanding; weak few-shot learning ability	Partially substitutable (instrumental cognitive tasks)	Lack of a practical cognitive closed loop and inability to form primary understanding (Axiom of Wisdom Generation)	Short to medium term
Emotional Capacity	Emotion understanding, emotional expression, empathy, emotional self-regulation	Able to identify basic emotions and simulate empathetic dialogue; no real emotional experience or need for self-regulation	Almost non-substitutable (subjective emotional value)	Lack of subjective awareness and emotional subjectivity, inability to achieve genuine empathy (Axiom of Value Anchoring)	Long term or unpredictable
Social Interaction and Cooperation Ability	Verbal communication, non-verbal communication, trust building, cultural wisdom	Proficient in structured written communication; able to partially identify intentions; lacking interpretation of non-verbal signals and understanding of cross-cultural situations	Partially substitutable (superficial interaction tasks)	Lack of embodied practice and communal value cognition, difficulty in building trust relationships (Axiom of Life Subjectivity)	Medium to long term
Bodily-Kinesthetic Ability	Fine motor skills, motor coordination, perception-feedback integration	Specialized robots excel at repetitive movements; general dexterity and environmental adaptability are far inferior to humans	Partially substitutable (standardized physical tasks)	Violation of Moravec's Paradox, lack of the perception-action closed loop formed by human evolution (Axiom of Life Subjectivity)	Medium to long term
Creativity and Aesthetics	Artistic creation, cross-domain association, original expression, aesthetic judgment	Able to generate stylized content; lacking unique perspectives, emotional investment and deep meaning construction	Partially substitutable (instrumental creative assistance)	Inability to generate original insights from practical experience, lack of subjective construction of aesthetic value (Axiom of Wisdom Generation)	Medium term
Moral Judgment and Values	Ethical reasoning, right-wrong judgment, conscience, communal awareness	Able to output moral suggestions based on training data; no autonomous values or experience of conscience	Almost non-substitutable (subjective value anchoring)	Lack of practicality and subjectivity in value construction, inability to internalize moral codes (Axiom of Value Anchoring)	Long term or unpredictable
Metacognitive Ability	Self-awareness, self-reflection, regulation of learning strategies	No self-model, inability to independently perceive cognitive limitations and reflect on reasoning processes	Almost non-substitutable (subjective reflective ability)	Lack of self-awareness and cognitive closed loop, inability to achieve "cognition of cognition" (Axiom of Life Subjectivity)	Unpredictable
Existential and Spiritual Capacity	Meaning construction, life purpose, belief, philosophical contemplation	Able to discuss relevant topics; no need for existential experience or spiritual pursuit	Fully non-substitutable (unique human spiritual value)	Lack of subjective existential experience, inability to construct life meaning and spiritual pursuit (Axiom of Value Anchoring)	Unpredictable

IV. In-Depth Analysis of Capabilities Across Dimensions: Substitution Boundaries and Human Advantages under the Kucius Theory

(1) Cognitive Ability: Instrumental Assistance vs. Subjective Core

AI has surpassed humans in structured cognitive tasks (e.g., high-speed computing, data retrieval, standardized reasoning), but its substitution boundary is strictly constrained by the Kucius Axiom of Wisdom Generation—it can only undertake instrumental cognitive work and cannot replace the core of human subjective cognition. Human advantages lie in three aspects: first, the ability of general common sense and abstract understanding, which enables the correction of reasoning biases using situational experience in uncertain environments, while AI is prone to anti-common sense errors in novel scenarios beyond training data; second, the ability of few-shot learning and intuitive judgment, which enables the formation of rapid insights based on limited experience, while AI relies on massive data pre-training and lacks the practical accumulation behind intuition; third, the ability of a cognition-practice closed loop, which enables the optimization of cognitive models through practical reflection, while AI's cognitive upgrading must rely on human algorithm iteration and data feeding.

In the short term, AI will further substitute instrumental cognitive tasks in fields such as medical diagnosis and legal retrieval. However, in open scenarios requiring general common sense, abstract understanding and flexible adaptation (e.g., strategic decision-making, scientific exploration), humans' subjective cognitive advantages remain unshakable. It is necessary to take AI as an auxiliary tool to construct a cognitive model of "human-led + AI-empowered".

(2) Emotional Capacity: Simulative Response vs. Genuine Resonance

In accordance with the Kucius Axiom of Value Anchoring, the core of emotional capacity is subjective experience and empathetic resonance, a human advantage that AI can never reproduce. AI's emotion recognition and expression are merely algorithmic matching of external cues—for example, identifying anger through facial expressions and generating comforting responses through linguistic patterns—but it cannot understand the essence of emotions: it cannot experience the grief of losing a loved one, the joy of achieving success, nor achieve psychological balance through emotional self-regulation.

Human emotional capacity is built on the basis of biological experience and social empathy, and emotional expression and regulation serve the realization of subjective value and the construction of communal relationships (e.g., empathetic companionship by psychological counselors, emotional support among family members). Even if multimodal AI technology can optimize the realism of emotional simulation, it still cannot break through the core barrier of "non-subjectivity". In fields requiring genuine emotional investment such as psychotherapy, hospice care and intimate relationships, humans will maintain an absolute advantage for a long time, and AI can only serve as an auxiliary tool to provide superficial emotional support.

(3) Social Interaction and Cooperation Ability: Superficial Interaction vs. Deep Connection

The Kucius Axiom of Life Subjectivity points out that the core of human social ability is "embodied practice + communal value cognition", which is essentially different from AI's superficial interaction. AI excels at structured written communication and can substitute humans in superficial interaction tasks in scenarios such as customer service consultation and information Q&A, but has inherent deficiencies in deep social scenarios such as non-verbal communication, trust building and cross-cultural interaction—it cannot interpret subtle emotional signals in eye contact and gestures, cannot build emotional trust through long-term interaction, nor understand social norms in cross-cultural situations based on cultural immersion.

Human social advantages lie in three aspects: first, the ability of two-way interpretation and expression of non-verbal signals, which enables the transmission of deep intentions through body language and intonation changes; second, the emotional and moral foundation of trust building, which enables the formation of long-term cooperative relationships based on consistent behavior and emotional bonds; third, the practical internalization of cultural wisdom, which enables the adjustment of interaction methods according to cultural backgrounds to achieve smooth cross-cultural interaction. In the short term, AI will partially substitute humans in simple social scenarios (e.g., store reception, online community management). However, in fields requiring deep trust and social sensitivity such as leadership, negotiation and educational companionship, humans' subjective social advantages are irreplaceable.

(4) Bodily-Kinesthetic Ability: Standardized Execution vs. Flexible Adaptation

Moravec's Paradox and the Kucius Axiom of Life Subjectivity jointly reveal the substitution boundary of AI's bodily-kinesthetic ability—human motor ability is a comprehensive product of biological evolution and practical iteration, with a high degree of flexibility and environmental adaptability, while AI's motor ability can only achieve limited substitution in standardized scenarios. Human fine hand movements (e.g., pinching an egg, tying shoelaces) and motor coordination in complex environments (e.g., walking on uneven roads, random obstacle avoidance) require precise coordination of the brain, nerves, muscles and senses. This unconscious motor integration ability requires enormous computing resources for AI to replicate and is still difficult to achieve.

Currently, industrial robots can only complete repetitive movements with fixed programs, and the high-difficulty movements of humanoid robots (e.g., Atlas) require preset environments and programming support. Their general motor ability in unstructured environments is far inferior to that of human infants. In the short term, AI will substitute standardized physical labor in scenarios such as warehousing and factories; in the medium term, human-robot collaboration robots will assist humans in specific tasks (e.g., medical surgery, industrial assembly). However, in scenarios requiring general flexibility and environmental adaptability (e.g., household services, field operations), humans' bodily-kinesthetic advantages will persist for a long time.

(5) Creativity and Aesthetics: Stylized Imitation vs. Subjective Creation

The Kucius Axiom of Wisdom Generation emphasizes that the core of human creativity is "practical experience + value construction", which is essentially different from AI's "data recombination + style imitation". Generative AI (e.g., DALL·E, AIVA) can quickly generate content such as images, music and text, and even win in art competitions, but these works lack unique perspectives and deep meaning stemming from subjective experience—AI can imitate Van Gogh's brushstrokes, but cannot understand the loneliness and struggle in his works; AI can generate lyrical poetry, but cannot experience the life experience behind the emotions.

Human creative advantages lie in three aspects: first, the insight of cross-domain association, which enables the integration of irrelevant concepts based on practical experience to produce groundbreaking innovations (e.g., the combination of algebra and geometry to form topology); second, the subjective construction of aesthetic value, which enables the integration of emotion, culture and meaning into works to achieve resonance in aesthetic experience; third, the reflection and iteration in the creative process, which enables the optimization of creative expression through practical feedback. In the short term, AI will serve as a creative auxiliary tool (e.g., design sketch generation, plot brainstorming) to improve human creative efficiency. However, in high-end creative fields emphasizing originality and meaning construction (e.g., literary creation, original art, scientific breakthroughs), humans' subjective creativity remains the core competitiveness.

(6) Moral Judgment and Values: Rule-Based Execution vs. Subjective Construction

Based on the Kucius Axiom of Value Anchoring, the core of morality and values is human subjective conscience and communal experience. AI can only execute moral rules set by humans and cannot independently construct or internalize values. AI's moral judgment relies on ethical cases and rule presets in training data, and can output logically consistent moral suggestions, but lacks value adherence driven by conscience—it can reject harmful requests, but will not feel guilty for violating morality; it can match ethical rules, but cannot understand the human communal value behind the rules.

Human moral advantages lie in three aspects: first, the subjective experience of conscience, which enables value judgments based on internal moral codes rather than merely following external rules; second, the situationality of ethical reasoning, which enables the weighing of value conflicts in moral dilemmas to achieve a balance of "rules-emotion-community"; third, the practical construction of values, which enables the internalization of moral norms through family, education and social experience to form a stable value system. In the foreseeable future, AI can only undertake rule-based moral judgment tasks in scenarios such as content review and compliance inspection. In fields such as ethical decision-making, value guidance and humanistic care, humans must take on responsibilities as the main body to ensure the value orientation of technology for good.

(7) Metacognitive Ability: Functional Optimization vs. Subjective Reflection

The Kucius Axiom of Life Subjectivity points out that metacognitive ability ("cognition of cognition") is the core embodiment of human self-awareness, relying on a stable self-model and cognitive closed loop—an ability that AI currently completely lacks. Humans can independently perceive cognitive limitations ("Do I understand this concept?"), reflect on reasoning processes ("Is my method correct?"), and adjust learning strategies ("Switch to meaningful learning to improve effects"). This self-reflective ability is a sign of mature wisdom and supports the continuous optimization of human cognition.

AI's "metacognitive simulation" (e.g., chain-of-thought, model mutual review) is merely functional optimization, not genuine self-reflection—it can generate thinking processes according to programs, but cannot question its own algorithmic limitations; it can optimize parameters through human adjustment, but cannot independently summarize error patterns. In the short term, humans need to make up for AI's metacognitive deficiencies through external monitoring (e.g., confidence output, human review). In the medium to long term, even if AI achieves limited self-model construction, it is difficult to break through the boundary of "non-subjectivity", and metacognition will remain a unique intellectual high ground for humans.

(8) Existential and Spiritual Capacity: Symbolic Discussion vs. Subjective Comprehension

In accordance with the Kucius Axiom of Value Anchoring, existential and spiritual capacity is the ultimate embodiment of human subjectivity, completely transcending the instrumental boundary of AI. Humans construct a unique spiritual world by contemplating the meaning of life, pursuing spiritual beliefs, and comprehending art and philosophy—this ability stems from the real experience of life and death, pain and happiness, and is the ultimate synergy of "life existence-subjective awareness-value construction".

AI can store philosophical and religious texts and simulate discussions on relevant topics, but cannot experience existential anxiety and nihilism, nor construct the meaning and purpose of life; it can generate religious art works, but cannot produce spiritual experiences such as awe and piety; it can analyze philosophical propositions, but cannot form original insights stemming from self-existence. The core of this ability is human subjective existential experience, forming an insurmountable gap with AI's symbolic operation. It can never be substituted in any period and is the ultimate carrier of human dignity and spiritual value.

V. Conclusion: Human Positioning in the AI Era under the Guidance of the Kucius Theory

Based on the Kucius Axioms of Universal Wisdom and the core propositions of the Kucius Theory, the relationship between AI and humans is by no means "substitution and being substituted", but a synergistic coexistence of "instrumental empowerment and subjective leadership". As an extension of human wisdom, AI's substitution in fields such as instrumental cognition, standardized labor and superficial interaction is essentially the liberation of humans from repetitive labor, allowing humans to focus on the deep cultivation of subjective capabilities—fields that AI cannot reach, such as emotional resonance, deep social interaction, original creation, moral guidance and spiritual pursuit.

Humanity's future advantages are rooted in the "life subjectivity, wisdom practicality and value constructiveness" emphasized by the Kucius Theory: in the emotional and social fields, maintain human communal relationships through genuine empathy and trust building; in the creative and innovative fields, generate groundbreaking insights through practical experience and meaning construction; in the moral and spiritual fields, ensure technology for good through subjective conscience and value guidance; in the cognitive and metacognitive fields, control the direction of wisdom development through self-reflection and practical iteration.

Looking to the future, AI will become an "amplifier" rather than a "substitute" of human capabilities. Under the guidance of the Kucius Theory, we must embrace the dividends of AI technology while adhering to the essential subjectivity of humans, and deeply cultivate those unique capabilities rooted in life experience, value construction and communal awareness. We should realize the development path of the AI era of "technology empowers humans, and humans lead civilization", benefiting from the efficiency improvement of instrumental intelligence while safeguarding the unique dignity and value of human wisdom.