Whose Voice, Whose Control? Agency in AI-Assisted Communication

Generative augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) can reduce input1 effort while making expression depend on systems that providers can change. We2 argue for proportionate continuity of expressive control: institutional duties to3 preserve or restore usable authority over what is said in a person’s name. A hypo-4 thetical update replaces a user-endorsed objection with an unwanted concession5 while retaining fluent output and a confirmation button. Drawing on relational6 autonomy and crip technoscience, we distinguish a person’s standing to direct7 expression from the practical means of exercising it. Where important participation8 depends on a system without workable substitutes, responsibility for disruptive9 changes falls to actors according to their roles and actual control. We distinguish10 preventive duties from responses to known disruption, and transition support from11 correction of an utterance or its institutional record. The account permits justified12 safety restrictions and feasible replacement systems. We propose questions for eval-13 uating transitions with AAC users; no empirical findings or validated assessment14 instrument are reported.