Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
Quattrociocchi et al. critique the notion of *Epistemia*, where large language models (LLMs) generate outputs that may seem knowledgeable without the necessary epistemic practices to validate them. They argue for a reframing of LLMs as *techno-semiotic machines* that automate linguistic processes, highlighting the socio-technical divide between mere linguistic plausibility and the deeper practices of interpretation and validation. The authors introduce the concept of *epistemic schizologia* to describe this phenomenon, emphasizing the importance of context and responsibility in the use of LLMs, which calls for a design approach that prioritizes inspectability and contestability in AI outputs.
The phenomenon of *epistemic schizologia* reveals how LLMs can create the illusion of knowledge while bypassing essential practices of judgment and accountability.
Quattrociocchi and colleagues warn that the fluent outputs of large language models may allow linguistic plausibility to substitute for epistemic evaluation, producing the condition they call *Epistemia*: the experience of possessing knowledge without undertaking the practices through which judgment would ordinarily be warranted. This article accepts that diagnosis but challenges its explanatory framework, which compares an embodied, socially situated human knower with an isolated generative model thereby locating epistemic legitimacy in capacities internal to autonomous agents. Drawing on Carlo Sini's philosophy of practices, writing, signs, and technics, we propose instead to understand a large language model (LLM) as a *techno-semiotic machine* that automates a phase of written semiosis by producing plausible linguistic configurations from the sedimented archive of human writing. From this perspective, *Epistemia* is one consequence of a broader phenomenon that we call *epistemic schizologia*: the socio-technical cleavage between signs as linguistically accomplished expressions and signs as moments within socially embedded circuits of interpretation, evidence, criticism, verification, and responsibility. This cleavage is reinforced by *eikotic closure*, through which a plausible continuation is presented with the finality of an epistemic result, and by algorithmic authority and epistemic self-misrecognition. The relevant unit is therefore not the model alone but the complete practice in which generated inscriptions are prompted, interpreted, verified, contested, used, and made consequential. This reframing preserves the distinction between linguistic production and responsible understanding while grounding a design programme centred on inspectable genealogy, contestability, distributed responsibility, epistemic agency, and the evaluation of hybrid human--AIpractices.