Conversational Artificial Intelligence and the Potential for Epistemic Injustice
Open accessAbstract
In their article, Sedlakova and Trachsel (2023) propose a holistic, ethical, and epistemic analysis of conversational artificial intelligence (CAI) in psychotherapeutic settings. They mainly descri...
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The only work with a focus on the epistemic injustice of generative AI is by De Proost and Pozzi (2023), which looks at the potential of conversational AI for hermeneutical ignorance.
“To the best of our knowledge, the only work with a focus on the epistemic injustice of generative AI is by De Proost and Pozzi (2023), which looks at the potential of conversational AI for hermeneutical ignorance.”
From Epistemic Injustice in Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as De Proost and Pozzi 2023
In “Conversational Artificial Intelligence and the Potential for Epistemic Injustice” (page unavailable), the authors examine how conversational AI in psychotherapy could cause testimonial and hermeneutical injustice, including patients being unable to make sense of experiences the system cannot recognize. The copy does not identify the systems as generative AI or use the term “hermeneutical ignorance”; its stated focus is hermeneutical injustice in a specific therapeutic setting. The claim that this is the only such work is the citing authors’ own qualification, not a finding attributed to the source. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredDe Proost and Pozzi's study presents two significant limitations: its analysis is confined to textual dialogue interactions, and it does not cover multimodal systems.
“However, this study presents two significant limitations.First, its analysis is confined to textual dialogue interactions.”
From Epistemic Injustice in Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as De Proost and Pozzi 2023
In “Conversational Artificial Intelligence and the Potential for Epistemic Injustice” (page unavailable), the authors say they examine testimonial and hermeneutical injustice in conversational AI used in psychotherapy. The copy does not establish that those interactions are exclusively textual or identify the omission of multimodal systems as a limitation; searches for text-only and multimodal interactions found no such passage. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing
Fricker, M. (2007) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001 · Cited by 9,198 · see citing works
Tracking Epistemic Violence, Tracking Practices of Silencing
Dotson, K. (2011) · Hypatia · doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01177.x · Cited by 2,150 · see citing works
Epistemic injustice and data science technologies
Symons, J., & Alvarado, R. (2022) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-022-03631-z · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Kidd, I. J., and H. Carel. 2017. Epistemic injustice and illness. Journal of applied philosophy 34 (2):172-190.
- Kidd, I. J., Spencer, L., and H. Carel. 2022. Epistemic injustice in psychiatric research and practice. Philosophical Psychology: 1-29. doi:10.1080/09515089.2022.2156333. · DOI
- Mason, R. 2021. Hermeneutical Injustice. In The Routledge Handbook of Social and Political Philosophy of Language, eds. J. Khoo and R. K. Sterken. New York: Routledge.
- Pozzi, G. 2023a. Automated opioid risk scores: a case for machine learning-induced epistemic injustice in healthcare. Ethics and Information Technology 25 (1):3. doi:10.1007/s10676-023- 09676-z. · DOI
- Pozzi, G. 2023b. Testimonial injustice in medical machine learning. Journal of Medical Ethics. Doi: 10.1136/jme-2022-108630. · DOI · Paper page
- Sanati, A., and M. Kyratsous. 2015. Epistemic injustice in assessment of delusions. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 21 (3):479-485.
- Sedlakova, J., and M. Trachsel. 2022. Conversational artificial intelligence in psychotherapy: a new therapeutic tool or agent?. The American Journal of Bioethics: 1-10. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2022.2048739. · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Epistemic Injustice in Generative AI
Kay, J., Kasirzadeh, A., & Mohamed, S. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1609/aies.v7i1.31671 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Mollema, W. J. T. (2025) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-025-00801-w · Cited by 24 · see citing works
“What’s more, De Proost & Pozzi [8] point one to the danger of hermeneutical marginalization when conversational AI are employed in the context of psychotherapy: the AI system – because of its reflection of the dominant worldviews from its training data – can take up hermeneutical privilege and…”
- Authors
- De Proost, M., & Pozzi, G.
- Affiliations
- Ghent University
- Delft University of Technology (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Pozzi, Giorgia
- Venue
- The American Journal of Bioethics
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2023-05-02
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 51-53
- ISSN
- 1526-5161 (ISSN-L)
- 1536-0075
- OpenAlex
- W4367671225
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- biblio.ugent.be
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- The American Journal of Bioethics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- European Research Council
- Research Infrastructures
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- conversational AI, epistemic injustice, psychotherapy, AI ethics, therapeutic relationship, trust in AI
- MeSH terms
- Artificial Intelligence, Communication, Humans, Psychotherapy, Social Justice
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
