Judgement-bearing assistance is the central analytic pivot: delegating evaluation of quality and correctness is normatively more demanding than instrumental assistance¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r3 · q1
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? Instrumental assistance (generating options, translating, summarising) differs normatively from judgement-bearing assistance, which delegates the standards by which output is assessed. → Du Y 2026

Evidence¶

Du Y 2026¶

Du Y, Yuan Y (2026) Epistemic dependence in AI-mediated learning. AI & SOCIETY. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-03294-1

q1 · i? · theoretical · r3

Conceptual distinction drawn in the review's conceptual analysis of epistemic dependence. The review defines judgement-bearing assistance as assistance that "evaluates correctness, relevance, quality, persuasiveness, ethical acceptability or evidential sufficiency", distinguishing it from instrumental or representational assistance. The argument is theoretical; no empirical test is reported.

"Nevertheless, judgement-bearing assistance is normatively more demanding, because it delegates not only production but the standards by which production is assessed. The distinction is therefore the paper's central analytic pivot."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Delegating the terminal evaluation to AI is self-defeating: each hand-off returns one more output someone must accept or not — related
• University AI policies score higher on delegation boundaries than on evidence standards — related
• Calibrated epistemic vigilance, given adequate prior knowledge, is the binding constraint on productive augmentation with AI — related
• Teachers retain ultimate control over AI systems because professional responsibility cannot be delegated — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• AI-assisted ideation was conditionally acceptable when researchers retained decision-making authority, but problematic when it displaced conceptual labour — related
• PGR students rejected GenAI generation of research ideas, original arguments, or whole papers as violating authorship norms, while accepting surface-level support — related