recordings regulate our epistemic practice in two ways.
(1) As an acute corrective insofar as they provide agents with the ability to ‘check the record’ to resolve disputation as to whether-p (Rini, 2020, 3-5).
(2) As a form of passive regulation (Rini, 2020, 3-5). One may adhere more closely to testimonial norms insofar as she is aware that the recording of testimony be used as a form of acute correction.
Levy (2021) Epistemic Landscape:
A source of information with a high degree of credibility is a peak of the epistemic landscape. The contrary holds for the troughs of the epistemic landscape. Peaks of our epistemic landscape are central to the proper functioning of epistemic practices as belonging to a peak generates higher-order evidence; one possesses evidence about the
strength and character of the
evidence they possess. For example, a newspaper renowned for its high-quality investigative journalism belongs to a peak within the epistemic landscape generates higher-order evidence. (Levy, 2021, 7-11).
Conducive Monadic
Ryan (2018) Epistemic Environmentalism:
Just as our ecosystem is constituted between the interrelation and dependencies of organisms. As is our epistemic environment.
It is constituted by the
‘interconnections and
interdependencies’ (Ryan, 2018, 99) between different epistemic agents and the physical environment which affords the possibility of gaining knowledge.
Conducive Pluralist
Table 3: How Misinformation Corrupts an Epistemic Environment Author: Concept: How misinformation
corrupts an epistemic environment:
Harm According to
Blake-Turner’s (2020, 13) Taxonomy:
Function of Epistemic Environment Impaired:
Blake-Turner
Degradation of EE
Introduction of (ir)relevant alternatives to previously justified claims.
Uses framework of relevant alternatives:
S knows that-p iff S can rule out the relevant alternatives to that-p.
Misinformation introduces a greater number of alternatives that individuals must discount to know that-p.
(1)-(3) Conducive
Rini Crises in epistemic backdrop
Misinformation in the form of deepfake videos leads to the testimonial standing of images & recordings fails.
They can no longer go to recording/images to verify narratives/statements.
(2) Weakens status of regulatory epistemic institutions and practices.
Deepfake misinformation dissolves the
Regulatory Goldberg (2016) Epistemic Environment:
A structure of idealised epistemic norms (such as the norm of assertion) and the institutions in which they are codified, which in turn regulate social epistemic practice (Goldberg, 2016, 14-17).
Regulatory Monadic
De Ridder (2021) Epistemic Environment:
The ‘totality of information sources [an agent] typically interacts with or easily could have interacted with’ (de Ridder, 2021, 13) including the physical environment, print and visual media, social media, websites, scientific instruments, and so forth,
‘all qualified to include nearby possibilities’ (my emphasis).
Conducive Monadic
Deliberation as to whether x is true or doctored, and the overall loss in trust in images
& recordings, is an epistemic crisis.
corrective and regulatory functions
recordings play in our epistemic practices; thus, impairing the regulatory function of an epistemic environment.
Levy Flattening of epistemic landscape
A cumulative loss of higher-order evidence within the epistemic landscape leads to sources of information being assigned the same degree of credibility and thus equally suspect.
For example, it is no longer enough to assume that because piece of information is from nytimes.com it is reliable – could easily be from ny-times.com (a fake-news website).
(2) Weakens status of regulatory epistemic institutions and practices.
Regulatory
Ryan Epistemic
Pollution Misinformation weakens the interrelations and
interdependencies between agents, which provides reason for individuals to lower the degree of trust they place in others and epistemic institutions.
(2) Weakens status of regulatory epistemic institutions and practices.
Regulatory
De Ridder (2021)
Epistemic Pollution
Misinformation provides misleading defeaters. A misleading defeater is a belief which undermines the justificatory status of other beliefs by contradicting them (rebutting defeater) or discrediting their grounds for justification (undercutting defeater).
From misleading defeaters, one can infer false beliefs.
This reduces understanding insofar as understanding is
(1) Agents inhabit environment rich in misinformation, which reduces the conducive
function of an epistemic environment.
Conducive
predicated upon identifying dependency relations between beliefs.
Table 4: Actors Involved in Production & Dissemination of Misinformation – Allocation of Epistemic Agency on Goldberg’s (2016, 9-10) Account.
Table 5: Actors Involved in Production & Dissemination of Misinformation – Allocation of Epistemic Agency and Responsibility on Gunn & Lynch’s (2021) Account.
Table 6: Poietic Responsibilities and Senses of “Responsibility”
Actor: Epistemic Agents on Goldberg’s (2016,
9-10) account. (Yes/No)
(x) (a) Human 1 Yes
(b) Bot No
(xi) GPT-3 No
(xii) Open AI Yes
(xiii) Bot Network No
(xiv) Bot developers Yes
(xv) Human(s) 2,3,4, n Yes
(xvi) Poor quality newspaper Yes
(xvii) Twitter Yes
(xviii) Twitter Algorithm No
Actor: Epistemic Agents
on Gunn & Lynch’s (2021) account of Agency: (Y/N)
Possession of Regulatory Responsibility:
(Y/N)
Possession of Productive Accountability:
(Y/N)
(x) (a) Human 1 Y Y Y
(b) Bot Y N Y
(xi) GPT-3 Y N Y
(xii) Open AI Y Y Y
(xiii) Bot Network Y N Y
(xiv) Bot developers Y Y Y
(xv) Human(s) 2,3,4, n Y Y Y
(xvi) Poor quality newspaper
Y Y Y
(xvii) Twitter Y Y Y
(xviii) Twitter
Algorithm Y N Y
Poietic Responsibility Sense of Responsibility (van de Poel, 2015, 38-89;
van de Poel & Sand, 2018, 4-5)
Forward or Backward Looking
Responsibility of Care Responsibility-as-virtue Forward Looking Responsibility of Future Use Responsibility-as-virtue and
capacity. Responsibility-as-(moral)obligation rooted in responsibility-as-authority.
Forward & Backward Looking
Responsibility of Process Responsibility-as-obligation Forward Looking Responsibility of Artefactual
Autonomy Responsibility-as-task and
authority Forward & Backward
Looking.
Table 7: Actors Involved in Production & Dissemination of Misinformation – Allocation of Poietic Responsibility
Actor: Poietic
Agent (Moral &
Epistemic Agent) (Y/N) (Human
= H) (Artificial
= A)
Can be held accountable for acts of poiesis?
(Y/N)
Can be
held responsible for acts of poiesis?
(Y/N)
Additional Responsibilities in virtue of partnership between human and artificial poietic agents?
(Y/N)
Increased poietic power resulting in greater
responsibilities toward
infosphere?
(Y/N)
(i) (a) Human 1 Y & H Y Y Y Y
(i) b) Bot Y & A Y N N N
(ii) GPT-3 Y & A Y N N N
(iii) Open AI Y & A Y Y Y Y
(iv) Bot Network Y & A Y N N N
(v) Bot
developers Y & H Y N Y Y
(vi) Human(s)
2,3,4, n Y & H Y Y Y Y
(vii) Poor quality
newspaper Y & A Y Y Y Y
(viii) Twitter Y & A Y Y Y Y
Figure 1: Nested Nature of Epistemic Environments & Epistemic Climate
Figure 2: Socio-affective and Cognitive Drivers Regarding Uptake of Misinformation (Ecker, Lewandowsky, & Cook et.al, 2022, 15)40
40 Reprinted with permission from Springer Nature.
EE1 EE2
EEn
EC (Epistemic Climate) (ix) Twitter
Algorithm Y & A Y N N N
Figure 3: Structure of Diffused Poieitc Responsibility
Technology
(User)
Technology Technology
(Prompter)
Third-Order Technology (Poietically Responsible-as-Accountability)
Designers (Poietically Responsible)
Users (Poietically Responsible)
Figure 4: Structure of Poietic Responsibilities
Poietic
Responsibilities
Epistemic
Responsibility Moral Responsibility
Predictive Constructionist
(Productive) Care Future
Use
Artefactual
Autonomy Process
Responsibility as Virtue Forward Looking
Responsibility as Virtue, Capacity, Obligation Forward &
Backward looking
Responsibility as Obligation
Forward Looking
Responsibility of Task and
Authority Forward Backward
Looking