Author:
Islam Gazi,Greenwood Michelle
Abstract
AbstractIn this editorial essay, we argue that Generative Artificial Intelligence programs (GenAI) draw on what we term a “hypercommons”, involving collectively produced inputs and labour that are largely invisible or untraceable. We argue that automatizing the exploitation of common inputs, in ways that remix and reconfigure them, can lead to a crisis of academic authorship in which the moral agency involved in scholarly production is increasingly eroded. We discuss the relationship between the hypercommons and authorship in terms of moral agency and the ethics of academic production, speculating on different responses to the crisis of authorship as posed by GenAI.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference15 articles.
1. Benkler, Y., & Nissenbaum, H. (2006). Commons-based peer production and virtue. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(4), 394–419.
2. Butler, N., & Spoelstra, S. (2023). “You just earned 10 points!”: Gaming and grinding in academia. Organization, 31(3), 720–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084221145589
3. Dean, J. (2010). Blog theory: Feedback and capture in the circuits of drive. Polity.
4. Foucault, M. (1984). What is an Author? In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault Reader (pp. 101–120). New York: Pantheon. [1969].
5. Fuchs, C. (2019). Karl Marx in the age of big data capitalism. In D. Objects (Ed.), Digital Subjects: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Capitalism, Labour and Politics in the Age of Big Data (pp. 53–71). London: University of Westminster Press.