Agency and Epistemic Integrity in Distant Writing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14393/DLv19a2025-66Keywords:
Distant Writing, Epistemic Agency, Epistemic Curation, Artificial Intelligence, AutorshipAbstract
In this paper we examine the epistemic and ethical dimensions of “distant writing”, a form of AI-assisted composition, in the context of philosophical and academic production. Given the challenge that Large Language Models (LLMs) pose to traditional notions of authorship, the text develops a positive vision for their responsible use. We argue that, rather than diminishing human agency, distant writing reconfigures the author's role into that of an epistemic curator. Drawing on epistemic concepts, we distinguish the philosopher's intentional agency from the machine's mere instrumentality, framing curation as a demanding cognitive act that involves prompt design, critical evaluation, and argumentative integration. Epistemic risks, such as the generation of “epistemic simulacra”, are analyzed, and it is proposed that the cultivation of intellectual virtues, such as vigilance and humility, is indispensable for their mitigation. Finally, we argue that authorial integrity can no longer be governed by notions of plagiarism as theft, but by an imperative of transparency, for which a taxonomy for ethical disclosure is proposed.
Downloads
References
ARISTOTLE. Nicomachean ethics. Translated by W. D. Ross. c. 350 BCE.
ATLAS Collaboration; CMS Collaboration. Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson at the LHC. Physics Letters B, v. 716, n. 1, p. 1–29, 2012.
BAEHR, J. The epistemic virtues and the nature of knowledge. In: PRITCHARD, D. (ed.). Epistemology: The key thinkers. London: Routledge, 2011. p. 148-164.
BATTAGLIA, F. Intellectual virtues, extended cognition, and the epistemology of AI. Philosophies, v. 7, n. 4, p. 84, 2022. DOI
BAUDRILLARD, J. Simulacra and simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994. DOI https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9904
BENDER, E. M. et al. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 2021. p. 610–623. DOI https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
BODEN, M. A. The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. 2. ed. London: Routledge, 2004. DOI https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203508527
BUCKNER, C. Deep learning: A philosophical introduction. Philosophy Compass, v. 14, n. 10, e12625, 2019. DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12625
CLARK, A.; CHALMERS, D. The extended mind. Analysis, v. 58, n. 1, p. 7–19, 1998. DOI https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7
CLOWES, R. W. AI tools, epistemic dependence and the demotion of human agency. AI and Ethics, p. 1–13, 2023. DOI
COLE, D. The Chinese Room Argument. In: ZALTA, E. N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 Edition). 2020. Disponível em: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/chinese-room/. Acesso em: 11 out. 2025.
EATON, S. E.; GÁLIK, M. A view on generative artificial intelligence and the future of academic integrity. Journal of Education, Culture and Society, v. 15, n. 1, p. 11–26, 2024. DOI
ELGIN, C. Z. True enough. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2017. DOI https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262036535.001.0001
FLORIDI, L. Distant writing: Literary production in the age of artificial intelligence. SSRN, 2025a. DOI https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5232088
FLORIDI, L. AI as agency without intelligence: On artificial intelligence as a new form of artificial agency and the multiple realisability of agency thesis. Philosophy & Technology, v. 38, n. 30, 2025b. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-025-00858-9
FRANKFURT, H. G. On bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.
FRIEDMAN, B.; NISSENBAUM, H. Bias in computer systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, v. 14, n. 3, p. 330-347, 1996. DOI https://doi.org/10.1145/230538.230561
GALISON, P. Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. DOI https://doi.org/10.29173/istl1396
GOLDIE, P.; SCHELLEKENS, E. (ed.). Philosophy and conceptual art. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. DOI https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199285556.001.0001
GOLDMAN, A. I. Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. DOI https://doi.org/10.1093/0198238207.001.0001
GRASSO, F. On the epistemic risks of large language models. Minds and Machines, v. 33, p. 685–690, 2023. DOI
GRECO, J. Achieving knowledge: A virtue-theoretic account of epistemic normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511844645
JAKESCH, M.; LEDERER, M.; MEYER, M. Epistemic risks of AI-generated texts. Digital Society, v. 2, n. 1, p. 10, 2023. DOI
KAHNEMAN, D. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.
KIDD, I. J.; BATTAGLIA, F. AI and intellectual virtue: An introduction. Philosophies, v. 8, n. 6, p. 110, 2023. DOI
MORETTI, F. Conjectures on world literature. New Left Review, n. 1, p. 54–68, 2000. DOI https://doi.org/10.64590/hxj
MORETTI, F. Distant reading. London: Verso Books, 2013.
NATURE. Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use. Nature, v. 613, p. 612, 2023. DOI https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00191-1
NYHOLM, S. The ethics of AI ethics: An introduction to the special issue. Ethics and Information Technology, v. 25, n. 1, p. 1, 2023. DOI
PRITCHARD, D. Epistemic risk. Journal of Philosophy, v. 113, n. 11, p. 550-571, 2016. DOI https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil20161131137
ROIG, M. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Research Integrity, 2006. Disponível em: https://ori.hhs.gov/plagiarism-0. Acesso em: 11 out. 2025.
ROSS, J. S. et al. Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: A case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA, v. 299, n. 15, p. 1800–1812, 2008. DOI https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.15.1800
RYLE, G. The concept of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949.
SCANLON, P. M. Student online plagiarism: How do we respond? College Teaching, v. 51, n. 4, p. 161–165, 2003. DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550309596432
SEARLE, J. R. Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, v. 3, n. 3, p. 417–457, 1980. DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00005756
STRZELECKI, A. To use or not to use ChatGPT in research? Researchers’ acceptance of AI-based conversational agents. Journal of Information Science, v. 0, n. 0, 2023. DOI
U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE. Copyright registration guidance: Works containing material generated by artificial intelligence. Federal Register, v. 88, n. 59, p. 16190-16194, 2023. Disponível em: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321. Acesso em: 11 out. 2025.
ZAGZEBSKI, L. Virtues of the mind: An inquiry into the nature of virtue and the ethical foundations of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174763
ZYLINSKA, J. AI art: Machine visions and warped dreams. London: Open Humanities Press, 2020.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Tiegue Vieira Rodrigues
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain the copyright and waiver the journal the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), allowing the sharing of work with authorship recognition and preventing its commercial use.
Authors are authorized to take additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (publish in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
How to Cite
