The Epistemological AI Turn: From JTB to KnowledgeS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/SetF.2026.004Słowa kluczowe
LLM systems, Knowledge, KnowledgeS, Knowledge as JTB, Knowledge in AI systems, Epistemological AI Turn, Human epistemic agency, algorithmic gnosis, LLM and Christian Religion, LLM and religious truth, illusions of knowledgeAbstrakt
In this paper, we examine whether large language models (LLMs) can be said to possess knowledge in the sense defined by the Justified True Belief (JTB) framework, and if not, whether any alternative form of knowledge can meaningfully be attributed to them. While LLMs perform impressively across various cognitive tasks—such as summarization, translation, and content generation—they lack belief, justification, and truth-evaluation, which are essential components of the JTB model. We argue that attributing human-like knowledge (in the JTB sense or its variants) to LLMs constitutes a category mistake. Accordingly, LLMs should not be regarded as epistemic agents with human-like capacities, but rather as machine tools that simulate certain functions of human cognition. We acknowledge, however, that when used critically and ethically, these tools can enhance human cognitive performance. To distinguish the capacities of LLMs from human cognitive agency, we introduce the term knowledgeS to denote the structured linguistic outputs produced by LLMs in response to complex cognitive tasks. We refer to the emergence of knowledgeS as marking an “epistemological AI turn.” Finally, we explore the theological implications of AI-generated knowledge. Because LLMs lack conscience and moral sense, they risk detaching knowledge from ethical grounding. Within normative traditions such as Christianity, knowledge is inseparable from moral responsibility rooted in the faith of a religious community. If AI-generated religious texts are mistaken for genuine spiritual insight, they may promote a form of “algorithmic gnosis”—content that mimics sacred language while remaining spiritually hollow. Such developments could erode the moral and spiritual depth of religious expression. As AI systems assume increasingly authoritative roles, society must guard against confusing knowledgeS with genuine, embodied, and ethically accountable knowing, which remains unique to human agency.
Bibliografia
Aslett, K., Sanderson, Z., Godel, W. et al. (2024). Online searches to evaluate misinformation can increase its perceived veracity. Nature 625, 548–556 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06883-y.
Audi, R. (2011). Epistemology. Taylor and Francis.
Austin, J., Odena, A., Nye, M., Bosma, M., Michalewski, H., Dohan, D., ... & Sutton, C. (2021). Program synthesis with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732.
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610–623). https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922.
Bennet, M., Dennett, D., Hacker, P., & Searle, J. (2007). Neuroscience and philosophy. Columbia University Press.
Bürger, L., Hamprecht, F. A., & Nadler, B. (2024). Truth is universal: Robust detection of lies in llms. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37, 138393-138431.
Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K., ... Xie, X. (2023). A survey on evaluation of large language models. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.03109.
Chen, M., Tworek, J., Jun, H., Yuan, Q., Pinto, H. P. D. O., Kaplan, J., ... & Zaremba, W. (2021). Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374.
Chiang, W. L., Zheng, L., Sheng, Y., Angelopoulos, A. N., Li, T., Li, D., ... & Stoica, I. (2024, March). Chatbot arena: An open platform for evaluating llms by human preference. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning.
Clark, P., Cowhey, I., Etzioni, O., Khot, T., Sabharwal, A., Schoenick, C., & Tafjord, O. (2018). Think you have solved question answering? Try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05457.
Cobbe, K., Kosaraju, V., Bavarian, M., Chen, M., Jun, H., Kaiser, L., ... & Schulman, J. (2021). Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168.
Dicasterium pro Doctrina Fidei. (2025). Antiqua et Nova: On the Human Person and the New Technologies. Vatican City. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20250128_antiqua-et-nova_en.html
Dietrich, E., Fields, C., Sullins, J., van Heuveln, B., & Zebrowski, R. (2023). Great philosophical objections to artificial intelligence. Bloomsbury Academic.
Fierro, C., Dhar, R., Stamatiou, F., Garneau, N., & Søgaard, A. (2024). Defining knowledge: Bridging epistemology and large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02499.
Gettier, E. (1996). Is justified true belief knowledge? In K. G. Lucey (Ed.), On knowing and the known. Prometheus Books.
Hadi, M. U., Qureshi, R., Shah, A., Irfan, M., Zafar, A., Shaikh, M., ... Mirjalili, S. (2023). A survey on large language models: Applications, challenges, limitations, and practical usage. TechRxiv. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.23457763.
Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Basart, S., Zou, A., Mazeika, M., Song, D., & Steinhardt, J. (2020). Measuring massive multitask language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300.
Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Kadavath, S., Arora, A., Basart, S., Tang, E., ... & Steinhardt, J. (2021). Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874.
Hodges, W. (2022). "Tarski’s Truth Definitions", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/tarski-truth/>.
Ichikawa, J. J., & Steup, M. (2024). The analysis of knowledge. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/knowledge-analysis/.
Kassner, N., Tafjord, O., Sabharwal, A., Richardson, K., Schuetze, H., & Clark, P. (2023). Language models with rationality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14250.
Krzanowski, R. and T. Marcinow. (2024). Advances of Philosophy in AI. Sciendo. DOI: 10.2478/9788368412000, on-line ebook: https://sciendo.com/pl/book/9788368412000.
Levy S. (2024). AI Is a Black Box. Anthropic Figured Out a Way to Look Inside. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/anthropic-black-box-ai-research-neurons-features/.
Lin, S., Hilton, J., & Evans, O. (2021). Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07958.
Liu, Y., Cao, J., Liu, C., Ding, K., & Jin, L. (2024). Datasets for large language models: A comprehensive survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18041.
Marcus, G., & Davis, E. (2019). Rebooting AI: Building artificial intelligence we can trust. Vintage.
Marks, S., & Tegmark, M. (2023). The geometry of truth: Emergent linear structure in large language model representations of true/false datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06824.
McCarthy, B. (2021). Misinformation and the Jan. 6 Insurrection: When ‘Patriot Warriors’ Were Fed Lies https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jun/30/misinformation-and-jan-6-insurrection-when-patriot/ (PolitiFact, 2021).
McCarthy, J., Minsky, M. L., Rochester, N., & Shannon, C. E. (1955). A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence. http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/dartmouth/dartmouth.pdf.
Pavlick E. (2023).Symbols and grounding in large language models. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2023 Jul 24;381(2251):20220041. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2022.0041. Epub 2023 Jun 5.
Piantadosi, S. T., & Hill, F. (2022). Meaning without reference in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.02957.
Raiaan, M. A. K., et al. (2024). A review on large language models: Architectures, applications, taxonomies, open issues and challenges. IEEE Access, 12, 26839–26874. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3365742.
Samuylova, E. (2025). 20 LLM evaluation benchmarks and how they work. EvidenlyAI. https://www.evidentlyai.com/llm-guide/llm-benchmarks#domain-specific-benchmarks.
Searle, J. (1996). The construction of social reality. Penguin Inc.
Singhal, K., Azizi, S., Tu, T. et al. (2023). Large language models encode clinical knowledge. Nature 620, 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06291-2.
Sloman, A. (1982). Computational Epistemology. Proceedings of the 2nd and 3rd Advanced Courses in Genetic Epistemology, organised by the Fondation Archives Jean Piaget in 1980 and 1981.Geneva: Foundation Archives Jean Piaget, 1982. - P. 49-93.
Srivastava, A., Rastogi, A., Rao, A., Shoeb, A. A. M., Abid, A., Fisch, A., ... & Wang, G. (2022). Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04615.
Truncellito, D. (n.d.). Epistemology. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/epistemo/
Turri, J., M, A., and J. Greco, "Virtue Epistemology", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/epistemology-virtue/>.
Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Xia, F., Chi, E., ... & Zhou, D. (2022). Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35, 24824-24837.
Wolfram, S. (2023a). What is ChatGPT doing… and why does it work? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flXrLGPY3SU.
Wolfram, S. (2023b). All-In Summit: Stephen Wolfram on computation, AI, and the nature of the universe [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cQmQIYNI5M.
Wolfram, S. (2025). Tensors. Wolfram MathWorld. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Tensor.html.
Xie, Q., Han, W., Chen, Z., Xiang, R., Zhang, X., He, Y., ... & Huang, J. (2024). Finben: A holistic financial benchmark for large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37, 95716-95743.
Zagzebski, L. (2009). On epistemology. Wadsworth.
Zellers, R., Holtzman, A., Bisk, Y., Farhadi, A., & Choi, Y. (2019). Hellaswag: Can a machine really finish your sentence?. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.07830.
Zeng, F., & Gao, W. (2024). Justilm: Few-shot justification generation for explainable fact-checking of real-world claims. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12, 334-354.
Zhang, Z., Lei, L., Wu, L., Sun, R., Huang, Y., Long, C., ... & Huang, M. (2023). SafetyBench: Evaluating the safety of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07045.
Pobrania
Opublikowane
Jak cytować
Numer
Dział
Licencja
Prawa autorskie (c) 2026 Roman Krzanowski, izabela Lipinska

Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
CC BY ND 4.0. Posiadaczem prawa autorskiego (Licencjodawcą) jest Autor, który na mocy umowy licencyjnej udziela nieodpłatnie prawa do eksploatacji dzieła na polach wskazanych w umowie.
- Licencjodawca udziela Licencjobiorcy licencji niewyłącznej na korzystanie z Utworu/przedmiotu prawa pokrewnego w następujących polach eksploatacji: a) utrwalanie Utworu/przedmiotu prawa pokrewnego; b) reprodukowanie (zwielokrotnienie) Utworu/przedmiotu prawa pokrewnego drukiem i techniką cyfrową (e-book, audiobook); c) wprowadzania do obrotu egzemplarzy zwielokrotnionego Utworu/przedmiotu prawa pokrewnego; d) wprowadzenie Utworu/przedmiotu prawa pokrewnego do pamięci komputera; e) rozpowszechnianie utworu w wersji elektronicznej w formule open access na licencji Creative Commons (CC BY-ND 3.0) poprzez platformę cyfrową Wydawnictwa Naukowego UMK oraz repozytorium UMK.
- Korzystanie przez Licencjobiorcę z utrwalonego Utworu ww. polach nie jest ograniczone czasowo ilościowo i terytorialnie.
- Licencjodawca udziela Licencjobiorcy licencji do Utworu/przedmiotu prawa pokrewnego nieodpłatnie na czas nieokreślony
PEŁEN TEKST UMOWY LICENCYJNEJ >>
Statystyki
Liczba wyświetleń i pobrań: 614
Liczba cytowań: 0