Naming AI use is not the same as owning a claim
Saying you used AI does not show you can defend a claim it helped shape. Mirończuk argues that scholars should understand and justify each claim they publish. This is a proposed rule for good judgment, not a test showing that the rule improves accuracy.
What the source reports
Marcin Mirończuk argues that a notice about AI use is not enough when AI shapes a scholar’s judgment. A person who puts a claim in a paper should be able to explain why it belongs there and defend it when asked. The kind of review should fit the job the AI did. This article sets out an ethical and practical way to think about authorship. It does not report a trial that shows better accuracy from the proposed approach. The point is about who can stand behind a claim, not just who filled out a notice.
Original source
- Title
- When disclosure rules are not enough: authorial warrant and judgment in ai-supported scholarship
- Author
- Marcin Mirończuk
- Publication
- Ethics and Information Technology / arXiv
- Date
- Friday, October 23, 2026