Artificial intelligence reading environments, in which users upload texts, pose interpretive questions, and receive computationally generated syntheses, are rapidly embedding themselves in scholarly and educational practice. Existing debates frame these tools in terms of cognitive enhancement or displacement. This paper argues that both miss the nature of the transformation. The central issue is structural: AI systems reconfigure the cognitive and hermeneutic architecture through which interpretation unfolds. Drawing on Gadamer's and Ricoeur's hermeneutics, Ong's history of reading, and Star's infrastructure studies, the paper demonstrates that AI-mediated reading introduces a triadic interpretive structure where the hermeneutic tradition has assumed a dyadic one. Between reader and text now stands a computational intermediary that organizes which aspects of the text become visible, in what form, and according to what prior schema of relevance. In this configuration, core interpretive operations previously performed by the reader are redistributed to computational processes that pre-structure the encounter before the reader's own horizon of understanding has formed. The paper develops this claim through five interlocking concepts: the fourth epoch of reading, the triadic reading architecture, synthetic dialogue, algorithmic hermeneutics, and interpretive infrastructure. It argues that AI reading environments generate a form of engagement termed synthetic dialogue, which reproduces the external form of classical dialogic reading while inverting its philosophical conditions, privileging coherence and closure over the provisional openness required for genuine hermeneutic dialogue. Through algorithmic hermeneutics, computational systems construct relevance and structure interpretive pathways. These processes introduce path-dependent trajectories within reading sessions. When embedded at institutional scale, these mechanisms produce collective interpretive convergence that masquerades as organic intellectual agreement. The paper conceptualizes this condition as interpretive infrastructure and identifies at its core a process of double concealment: the simultaneous hiding of computational operations and the interpretive plurality they foreclose. In response, it proposes critical algorithmic literacy as a hermeneutic disposition oriented toward making this infrastructure visible and negotiable, defined by three practices: recognizing pre-structured pathways, recovering sealed alternatives, and suspending premature interpretive closure.
Ahmad et al. (2026) studied this question.