Manipulation and Deception in Generative AI-Mediated Education: Preserving Epistemic Agency, Critical Thinking, and Creativity
Манипуляция и обман в образовании, опосредованном генеративным искусственным интеллектом: сохранение эпистемической субъектности, критического мышления и креативности
2026-05-02
SCID: 54.1/yce38qr8
Discuss with AI
Critical thinking and creativityEpistemic agencyGenerative AI-mediated educationManipulation and deceptionVirtue-informed design constraints
Figures from the paper
Abstract (AI)
Abstract Generative AI now mediates core parts of learning, yet we lack criteria to tell its legitimate pedagogical uses from manipulative and deceptive ones. We also know too little about how AI reshapes the growth of critical thinking and creativity, or about whether it accelerates drift from educational goods to evaluative metrics. Using a postdigital, pragmatist lens that treats classrooms as sociomaterial assemblages of people, platforms, and institutions, we propose three orienting principles: moral legitimacy (when AI influence crosses into the darker side of manipulation or deception), developmental integrity (how tools support rather than substitute reflective judgement and imaginative work), and value preservation (protecting epistemic agency and intellectual virtues). This programme proceeds by defining and testing concepts and thresholds, adjudicating hard cases across autonomy-, virtue-, and outcome-based views, and suggests how results translate into design and policy. Expected outputs include a typology of influence (nudging, persuasion, manipulation, and deception), a legitimacy audit, and virtue-informed design constraints (e.g., contestability, reason-giving, and calibrated confidence) that embrace edtech with humanistic aims.
Key Findings
1
It frames classrooms as sociomaterial assemblages and evaluates AI through moral legitimacy, developmental integrity, and value preservation.
2
Proposed virtue-informed design constraints include contestability, reason-giving, and calibrated confidence to guide humanistic AI use in education.
3
The paper identifies a lack of criteria for distinguishing legitimate pedagogical uses of generative AI from manipulative or deceptive educational practices.
4
The proposed framework emphasizes supporting rather than substituting reflective judgment, imaginative work, epistemic agency, and intellectual virtues.
5
The research program will develop a typology distinguishing nudging, persuasion, manipulation, and deception, alongside a legitimacy audit.
Research Object
Generative AI-mediated education as a sociomaterial assemblage of learners, platforms, and institutions
Research Subject
The legitimacy and developmental effects of AI influence, including manipulation and deception, on epistemic agency, critical thinking, creativity, reflective judgment, intellectual virtues, and the preservation of educational values
Publication Details
Publication Date
2026-05-02
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Cited by
5
Open access PDF
Access Type
Author Information
Download PDF
Subscribe to digest