Beyond blanket prohibition: generative ai, accountable authorship, and the genealogy of thought
Ethics and Information Technology, cilt.28, sa.4, 2026 (AHCI, SSCI, Scopus)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
- Cilt numarası: 28 Sayı: 4
- Basım Tarihi: 2026
- Doi Numarası: 10.1007/s10676-026-09930-0
- Dergi Adı: Ethics and Information Technology
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Scopus, ABI/INFORM, Aerospace Database, Applied Science & Technology Source, Communication Abstracts, Compendex, INSPEC, Philosopher's Index, Philosopher's Index full-text, EBSCO Communication Source, Art, Design & Architecture Collection (ProQuest), Social Science Premium Collection (ProQuest), Art, Design & Architecture Collection (ProQuest), Arts Premium Collection (ProQuest), Communication Source (EBSCO), Library & Information Science Collection (ProQuest), Technology Collection (ProQuest)
- Anahtar Kelimeler: Academic integrity, Accountability, Authorship, Generative AI, Intellectual contribution, Scholarly writing
- İstanbul Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
Academic publishing has largely settled one question about generative AI while leaving another unresolved: AI systems are not eligible for authorship, but the boundary between legitimate assistance and authorship-displacing delegation remains unclear. This article argues that these are separate normative questions. Excluding an LLM from the byline does not by itself justify restricting human use to grammar, readability, or other non-intellectual tasks. At the same time, human approval and responsibility are not sufficient for authorship when authorship-defining intellectual work has been delegated. The relevant boundary is therefore between legitimate substantive assistance and authorship-displacing delegation. In conceptual scholarship, legitimate AI-assisted authorship requires a substantial authorship-relevant human intellectual contribution, critical and integrative command of the developing argument, verification and provenance discipline, proportionate disclosure, and final accountability. The article uses the speechwriter dilemma, peer review, philosophical dialogue, genealogy, and extended cognition to clarify why substantial non-author contribution need not displace human authorship, while still preserving the credit function of the byline. It concludes with a three-level governance model and applies the account reflexively to the article’s own AI-assisted revision process.