@article{Henrickson2021_1, author = {Leah Henrickson}, title = {Towards a new sociology of the text: the hermeneutics of algorithmic authorship}, year = {2021}, journal = {Figshare}, doi = {10.26174/thesis.lboro.10596404.v1}, url = {https://doi.org/10.26174/thesis.lboro.10596404.v1}, abstract = {Natural language generation (NLG) is the process wherein computers produce output in readable human languages. Such output takes myriad forms, including news articles, sports reports, prose fiction, and poetry. These computer-generated texts are often indistinguishable from human-written texts, and they are increasingly prevalent. Yet NLG has not been subject to any comprehensive study within the humanities.
This thesis represents the first such study. Through an interdisciplinary approach rooted in the humanities, but also drawing from the social sciences and computer science, this thesis explores the social and hermeneutic implications of NLG. More specifically, it examines how NLG challenges traditional understandings of authorship and what it means to be a reader. Any act of reading engages interpretive faculties, and readers tend to assume that a text is an effort to communicate a particular message. Readers ascribe authorial intention, hence developing a perceived contract between the author and the reader: ‘the hermeneutic contract’.
Computer-generated texts in their current state bring the hermeneutic contract into question. The hermeneutic contract’s communication principle rests on two assumptions: that readers believe that authors want them to be interested in their texts, and that authors want readers to understand their texts. The contract depends on an understanding of authorship as characterised by intention-driven agency. This thesis presents the results of a series of focus groups and an online questionnaire conducted to discern readers’ emotional responses to NLG and how readers attribute authorship to computer-generated texts. The results of these studies indicate that readers assign a sense of agency to an NLG system, attempting to establish the hermeneutic contract even when faced with a computer-generated text. Consequently, I argue that a continuum from authorship to generatorship is perhaps a more suitable schema for considering computer-generated texts than a simple author-not author dichotomy.
This thesis begins with a historical overview of salient narrative NLG systems. The discussion then shifts to a theoretical consideration of authorship and the role of the reader as pertaining to NLG systems. Then, the results of the abovementioned empirical studies are reviewed and analysed. The final chapter argues for a semantic shift from describing NLG systems as tools to social agents in themselves; the NLG system truly becomes an algorithmic author.
NLG is here, and it is everywhere. This thesis explores what that means from a humanities perspective.}, } @article{Rodrigues2025_2, author = {Rodrigues, Tiegue Vieira}, title = {Distant writing and the epistemology of authorship: On creativity, delegation, and plagiarism in the age of AI}, year = {2025}, journal = {International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention}, volume = {12}, number = {5}, pages = {8598-8613}, doi = {10.18535/ijsshi/v12i05.04}, url = {https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsshi/v12i05.04}, abstract = {This paper examines the epistemic and ethical dimensions of Luciano Floridi’s (2025a) concept of “distant writing,” a form of AI-assisted composition in which large language models (LLMs) are used to generate, refine, or structure literary and argumentative texts. Drawing on analytic epistemology and virtue theory, and further informed by Floridi's (2025b) thesis on AI as agency without intelligence, it argues that distant writing constitutes a distributed epistemic activity, wherein the human author retains epistemic agency while delegating generative labor to non-agential systems. Central to this analysis is a distinction between epistemic instrumentality and epistemic agency, which clarifies the role of LLMs as sophisticated tools rather than co-authors. The paper explores how procedural, evaluative, and semantic knowledge inform the author’s control over AI-generated content and assesses the epistemic risks introduced by the plausibility and opacity of such outputs. In response to concerns about plagiarism, it proposes a normative reformulation of attribution standards, emphasizing transparency and epistemic conscientiousness over traditional notions of originality. Ultimately, the paper situates distant writing within an emerging epistemic ecology in which creativity, authorship, and intellectual responsibility are collaboratively negotiated between human and machine. It advocates for a taxonomy of AI involvement to guide ethical disclosure and preserve the integrity of authorship in an age of synthetic textual production.}, } @article{Adema2021_3, author = {Adema, Janneke}, title = {Living Books}, year = {2021}, journal = {The MIT Press eBooks}, doi = {10.7551/mitpress/11297.001.0001}, url = {https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11297.001.0001}, abstract = {Reimagining the scholarly book as living and collaborative—not as commodified and essentialized, but in all its dynamic materiality. In this book, Janneke Adema proposes that we reimagine the scholarly book as a living and collaborative project—not as linear, bound, and fixed, but as fluid, remixed, and liquid, a space for experimentation. She presents a series of cutting-edge experiments in arts and humanities book publishing, showcasing the radical new forms that book-based scholarly work might take in the digital age. Adema's proposed alternative futures for the scholarly book go beyond such print-based assumptions as fixity, stability, the single author, originality, and copyright, reaching instead for a dynamic and emergent materiality. Adema suggests ways to unbind the book, describing experiments in scholarly book publishing with new forms of anonymous collaborative authorship, radical open access publishing, and processual, living, and remixed publications, among other practices. She doesn't cast digital as the solution and print as the problem; the problem in scholarly publishing, she argues, is not print itself, but the way print has been commodified and essentialized. Adema explores alternative, more ethical models of authorship; constructs an alternative genealogy of openness; and examines opportunities for intervention in current cultures of knowledge production. Finally, asking why it is that we cut and bind our research together at all, she examines two book publishing projects that experiment with remix and reuse and try to rethink and reperform the book-apparatus by taking responsibility for the cuts they make.}, } @article{Behzadi2015_4, author = {Behzadi, Lale and Hämeen-Anttila, Jaakko and Ghersetti, Antonella and Gutas, Dimitri and Görke, Andreas}, title = {Concepts of authorship in pre-modern Arabic texts}, year = {2015}, journal = {Bamberger Orientstudien}, doi = {10.20378/irb-40118}, url = {https://doi.org/10.20378/irb-40118}, abstract = {1 This goes along with a reduction in complexity we should be aware of.Jannidis et al., "Rede ber den Autor an die Gebildeten unter seinen Verchtern," 32 (for bibliographical details, see "introduction"). 2 It is rather difficult to produce a comprehensive list of all possible authorial functions.It is also true that there are many different terms and definitions, such as "precursory authorship", "executive authorship", "collaborative authorship", "revisionary authorship" etc., depending on the academic perspective and zeitgeist.Love, Attributing Authorship, 32-50 (for bibliographical details, see "introduction").20 For the "illusion of improvisation" see Boris Eichenbaum, "Die Illusion des Skaz," 272; although he mostly refers to explicit oral insertions, it could be asked in our texts, too, how this "personal sound" evolves, "Wie Gogols Mantel gemacht ist," 275f.21 When used in literary theory, the term mostly refers to either multilingualism or to a required unity of the original text and its translation.See Strutz/Zima, Literarische Polyphonie.27 Referring to Edward Said's statement on textuality, Harold Love sums up as follows: "To identify authorship as a form of human work is to validate individual agency."Love, Attributing Authorship, 32.28 With reference to Friedrich Schleiermacher, see Klausnitzer, "Autorschaft und Gattungswissen," 227-230.29 Klausnitzer, "Autorschaft und Gattungswissen," 231. 1 Pedersen, Arabic Book, 23. 2 "In what way then could Barthes' Author -dead or alive -be of any interest for medievalists?'The Death of the Author' asked no questions and gave no answers directly relevant to interpreters of Medieval literature"}, } @article{Fathallah2017_5, author = {Fathallah, Judith May}, title = {Fanfiction and the Author}, year = {2017}, journal = {Amsterdam University Press eBooks}, doi = {10.1515/9789048529087}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1515/9789048529087}, abstract = {The production, reception and discussion of fanfiction is a major aspect of contemporary global media. Thus far, however, the genre has been subject to relatively little rigorous qualitative or quantitative study-a problem that Judith M. Fathallah remedies here through close analysis of fanfiction related to Sherlock, Supernatural, and Game of Thrones. Her large-scale study of the sites, reception, and fan rejections of fanfic demonstrate how the genre works to legitimate itself through traditional notions of authorship, even as it deconstructs the author figure and contests traditional discourses of authority. Through a process she identifies as the 'legitimation paradox', Fathallah demonstrates how fanfic hooks into and modifies the discourse of authority, and so opens new spaces for writing that challenges the authority of media professionals.}, } @article{Zeilinger2021_6, author = {Martin Zeilinger}, title = {Tactical entanglements: AI art, creative agency, and the limits of intellectual property}, year = {2021}, journal = {Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences)}, doi = {10.14619/1839}, url = {https://doi.org/10.14619/1839}, abstract = {How do artistic experiments with artificial intelligence problematize human-centered notions of creative agency, authorship, and ownership? Offering a wide-ranging discussion of contemporary digital art practices, philosophical and technical considerations of AI, posthumanist thought, and emerging issues of intellectual property and the commons, this book is firmly positioned against the anthropomorphic spectacle of "creative AI." It proposes instead the concept of the posthumanist agential assemblage, and invites readers to consider what new types of creative practice, what reconfigurations of the author function, and what critical interventions become possible when AI art provokes tactical entanglements between aesthetics, law, and capital.}, } @article{Israel2022_7, author = {Israel, Maria Joseph and Amer, Ahmed}, title = {Rethinking data infrastructure and its ethical implications in the face of automated digital content generation}, year = {2022}, journal = {AI and Ethics}, volume = {3}, number = {2}, pages = {427-439}, doi = {10.1007/s43681-022-00169-1}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00169-1}, abstract = {Abstract Recent AI developments have made it possible for AI to auto-generate content—text, image, and sound. Highly realistic auto-generated content raises the question of whether one can differentiate between what is AI-generated and human-generated, and assess its origin and authenticity. When it comes to the processes of digital scholarship and publication in the presence of automated content generation technology, the evolution of data storage and presentation technologies demand that we rethink basic processes, such as the nature of anonymity and the mechanisms of attribution. We propose to consider these issues in light of emerging digital storage technologies that may better support the mechanisms of attribution (and fulfilling broader goals of accountability, transparency, and trust). We discuss the scholarship review and publication process in a revised context, specifically the possibility of synthetically generated content and the availability of a digital storage infrastructure that can track data provenance while offering: immutability of stored data; accountability and attribution of authorship; and privacy-preserving authentication mechanisms. As an example, we consider the MetaScribe system architecture, which supports these features, and we believe such features allow us to reconsider the nature of identity and anonymity in this domain, and to broaden the ethical discussion surrounding new technology. Considering such technological options, in an underlying storage infrastructure, means that we could discuss the epistemological relevance of published media more generally.}, } @article{Birkstedt2023_8, author = {Birkstedt, Teemu and Minkkinen, Matti and Tandon, Anushree and Mäntymäki, Matti}, title = {AI governance: themes, knowledge gaps and future agendas}, year = {2023}, journal = {Internet Research}, volume = {33}, number = {7}, pages = {133-167}, doi = {10.1108/intr-01-2022-0042}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-01-2022-0042}, abstract = {Purpose Following the surge of documents laying out organizations' ethical principles for their use of artificial intelligence (AI), there is a growing demand for translating ethical principles to practice through AI governance (AIG). AIG has emerged as a rapidly growing, yet fragmented, research area. This paper synthesizes the organizational AIG literature by outlining research themes and knowledge gaps as well as putting forward future agendas. Design/methodology/approach The authors undertake a systematic literature review on AIG, addressing the current state of its conceptualization and suggesting future directions for AIG scholarship and practice. The review protocol was developed following recommended guidelines for systematic reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Findings The results of the authors’ review confirmed the assumption that AIG is an emerging research topic with few explicit definitions. Moreover, the authors’ review identified four themes in the AIG literature: technology, stakeholders and context, regulation and processes. The central knowledge gaps revealed were the limited understanding of AIG implementation, lack of attention to the AIG context, uncertain effectiveness of ethical principles and regulation, and insufficient operationalization of AIG processes. To address these gaps, the authors present four future AIG agendas: technical, stakeholder and contextual, regulatory, and process. Going forward, the authors propose focused empirical research on organizational AIG processes, the establishment of an AI oversight unit and collaborative governance as a research approach. Research limitations/implications To address the identified knowledge gaps, the authors present the following working definition of AIG: AI governance is a system of rules, practices and processes employed to ensure an organization's use of AI technologies aligns with its strategies, objectives, and values, complete with legal requirements, ethical principles and the requirements set by stakeholders. Going forward, the authors propose focused empirical research on organizational AIG processes, the establishment of an AI oversight unit and collaborative governance as a research approach. Practical implications For practitioners, the authors highlight training and awareness, stakeholder management and the crucial role of organizational culture, including senior management commitment. Social implications For society, the authors review elucidates the multitude of stakeholders involved in AI governance activities and complexities related to balancing the needs of different stakeholders. Originality/value By delineating the AIG concept and the associated research themes, knowledge gaps and future agendas, the authors review builds a foundation for organizational AIG research, calling for broad contextual investigations and a deep understanding of AIG mechanisms. For practitioners, the authors highlight training and awareness, stakeholder management and the crucial role of organizational culture, including senior management commitment.}, } @article{Fenwick2023_9, author = {Fenwick, Mark and Jurcys, Paulius}, title = {Originality and the future of copyright in an age of generative AI}, year = {2023}, journal = {Computer Law & Security Review}, volume = {51}, pages = {105892}, doi = {10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105892}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105892}, } @article{Bajohr2024_10, author = {Bajohr, Hannes}, title = {Writing at a Distance: Notes on Authorship and Artificial Intelligence}, year = {2024}, journal = {German Studies Review}, volume = {47}, number = {2}, pages = {315-337}, doi = {10.1353/gsr.2024.a927862}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1353/gsr.2024.a927862}, abstract = {ABSTRACT: This essay provides an overview of notions of authorship in AI and natural language processing systems and discusses past and current debates about computers as literary authors. It suggests the concept of causal authorship to measure the types of distance between human and machine agents, acknowledging the anthropocentric bias of this idea. To balance this, the essay reflects on the notion of distributed authorship , which considers the network of actors involved in the creation of a text and has its own limitations. Both concepts are elements of a future theory of authorship in the age of machine learning.}, } @article{Knchelmann2023_11, author = {Knöchelmann, Marcel}, title = {Authorship and Publishing in the Humanities}, year = {2023}, journal = {Cambridge University Press eBooks}, doi = {10.1017/9781009223089}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009223089}, abstract = {What is the point of publishing in the humanities? This Element provides an answer to this question. It builds on a unique set of quantitative and qualitative data to understand why humanities scholars publish. It looks at both basic characteristics such as publication numbers, formats, and perceptions, and differences of national academic settings alongside the influences of the UK's Research Excellence Framework and the German Exzellenzinitiative. The data involve a survey of more than 1,000 humanities scholars and social scientists in the UK and Germany, allowing for a comprehensive comparative study, and a series of qualitative interviews. The resulting critique provides scholars and policy makers with an accessible and critical work about the particularities of authorship and publishing in the humanities. And it gives an account of the problems and struggles of humanities scholars in their pursuit of contributing to discourse, and to be recognised with their intellectual work.}, } @article{Barthes2017_12, author = {Barthes, Roland}, title = {The Death of the Author}, year = {2017}, journal = {The Continental Aesthetics Reader}, doi = {10.4324/9781351226387-35}, } @article{Foucault2019_13, author = {Foucault, Michel}, title = {What Is an Author?}, year = {2019}, journal = {Textual Strategies}, doi = {10.7591/9781501743429-006}, }