Schwitzgebel Urges Journals to Reject 100% AI-Written Philosophy Papers
Updated
Updated · Daily Nous · Jul 16
Schwitzgebel Urges Journals to Reject 100% AI-Written Philosophy Papers
1 articles · Updated · Daily Nous · Jul 16
Summary
Eric Schwitzgebel argues philosophy journals should reject AI-written submissions and that he does not want AI-written philosophy emails, saying human authorship itself is evidence a view merits attention.
That claim rests on “meta-evidence”: with limited time and attention, knowing an expert human chose the words helps readers judge whether arguments are careful, important and worth serious engagement.
He says passive approval of LLM-generated prose is not equivalent to writing it, because experts may miss subtle wording shifts and lose the active judgment involved in generating arguments from scratch.
The post stops short of a blanket anti-AI ban, but it enters a wider debate over whether journals can verify human authorship, whether editorial review already supplies enough quality filtering, and how AI can flood discussions with low-effort argument.