Sep 2026· Digital Society· Vol 5· 0 citations· 30 references
TL;DR
An ethics of non-agentive AI is sketched: the authors should see these systems as powerful, instrument-like extensions of human cognition, not as knowers in their own right, and design institutions, interfaces and norms of trust accordingly.
Abstract
What if the most influential voices in our epistemic lives are not agents at all, but machines we keep mistaking for them? I argue that contemporary AI systems function more and more like epistemic authorities while lacking the psychological resources that underpin human epistemic agency. Building on work on artificial epistemic authority and algorithmic truth, I show how search engines, recommendation systems and large language models are already treated as sources of knowledge in medicine, education and everyday deliberation. I then turn to the distinction between episodic and semantic memory in human cognition and argue that current AI only has the latter in a thin, decontextualized form. It has no episodic memory, no autobiographical perspective and no capacity to remember past episodes as ‘things that happened to me.’ This, I claim, makes our growing tendency to relate to AI as if it were a responsible testifier a form of misrecognition. I conclude by sketching an ethics of non-agentive AI: we should see these systems as powerful, instrument-like extensions of human cognition, not as knowers in their own right, and design institutions, interfaces and norms of trust accordingly.
The Stoic concept of the hegemonikon—the capacity for assent that directs the mind—is used as a framework for understanding intellectual creation and decision-making, clarifying when AI supports human judgment and when it replaces decision-making authority.
Christos A. Koutsotasios, Elias Vavouras· Dianoesis· 0 citations
This study argues that AI embodies a calculative mode of thought that reduces knowledge to data, patterns, and predictive models, treating both the world and human subjects as resources for optimization, and proposes Heideggerian meditative thinking (Gelassenheit) as a framework for preserving human insight, reflection...
It is argued that generative AI does not make human beings smarter as such; its epistemic significance depends on how human–AI interaction is structured and normatively governed.
In order to live well in an AI-based society, designing technically ethical systems, in the spirit of consequentialism, is not enough; rather, it is essential to cultivate citizens who, as AI users, are endowed with virtues and, first and foremost, the virtue of prudence.
Josep Del-Hierro-Dies, J. Sánchez-Cañizares· Scientia et Fides· 0 citations
It is concluded that, while AI may be considered a valuable tool for supporting human moral deliberation, it cannot by itself serve as an expert moral decision-maker.
The article argues that many contemporary AI alignment practices risk a mistaken assimilation of moral agency to statistical learning. Techniques such as reinforcement learning from human feedback and constitutional AI often treat morality as a behavioral function that can be approximated from human discourse, behavior...