Abstract In this commentary of Mollema’s “AI-generated literature, distant writing and the reader: Reflections on Floridi and Calvino” we examine some epistemological implications of his analysis of AI-generated literature and distant writing . Mollema supports a de-anthropomorphized conception of narrative creation because he believes writers and Big Language Models share identical functions in navigating narrative space to preserve narrative coherence or isotropy. The author’s thesis undergoes an analytical epistemological evaluation that analyses three essential questions about narrative production creative knowledge. Can we attribute genuine knowledge-how to algorithmic systems in relation to creative domains? The automation of literary production generates what kind of potential threats to knowledge acquisition? The research uses philosophical knowledge-how, understanding, intentionality and social epistemology to demonstrate Mollema’s accurate identification of narrative creation similarities between humans and machines but his framework potentially conceals fundamental epistemological differences. Through purposes and meanings, the human writer experiences narrative space which enables interpretative practices to create epistemic value in creative work. Mollema makes his most important contribution by showing how production activities can be automated yet interpretation for meaning creation remains impossible to automate. Literary knowledge shows human systems receive less than artificial systems because human interpretation remains essential for meaning creation although navigation skills can be divided between humans and machines. The final section of the commentary evaluates how Mollemass literary reductionism theory affects the diversity of knowledge in creative activities.
Tiegue Vieira Rodrigues (Fri,) studied this question.