The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Generative Artificial Intelligence as Epistemic Authority?
Abstract
This study critically examines the integration and impact of large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, on higher education. As generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has become increasingly embedded in society, its influence in higher education has raised important questions about its potential as an epistemic authority and whether educators should embrace its use. Drawing on reflections from three teacher-educators at two Australian universities, this chapter explores the impact on learning posed by GenAI. Central to the discussion is the challenge of discerning truth/s, the ethical dilemmas that GenAI platforms present, and the changing landscape of education in which the technology serves as a tool and topic of critical exploration.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
When LLMs are asked to explain scripture, justify ethical claims, or translate doctrinal concepts into actionable guidance, they participate in shaping what counts as legitimate knowledge, who is authorized to speak, and under what institutional conditions interpretive claims acquire normative force.
“It is a problem of governance and authority: when systems are asked to explain scripture, justify ethical claims, or translate doctrinal concepts into actionable guidance, they participate in shaping what counts as legitimate knowledge, who is authorized to speak, and under what institutional conditions interpretive claims acquire normative force [10,13,18].”
From Who speaks when machines read scripture: boundary-making and interpretive authority in AI-mediated religious knowledge (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
In AI-mediated religious knowledge systems, authority is enacted through policies, interfaces, datasets, and validation infrastructures that structure who may interpret, under what conditions, and with what normative force, rather than located in either human interpreters or machine outputs alone.
“In AI-mediated religious knowledge systems, authority is enacted through policies, interfaces, datasets, and validation infrastructures that structure who may interpret, under what conditions, and with what normative force, rather than located in either human interpreters or machine outputs alone [10,13].”
From Who speaks when machines read scripture: boundary-making and interpretive authority in AI-mediated religious knowledge (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ahmad, H., & Ghafar, N. A. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01254-5 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Cooper, G., Tang, K.-S., & Rappa, N. A.
- Venue
- Artificial Intelligence Applications in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2024-09-19
- Pages
- 106-122
- OpenAlex
- W4402640590
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 11.65
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Digital Education and Society
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- generative AI, large language models, ChatGPT, epistemic authority, higher education, teacher educators, AI ethics, artificial intelligence in education, critical pedagogy
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
