Should We Dismiss an Argument Simply Because It Was Written by AI?

Killing the Messenger. AI art

Introduction

In contemporary digital forums, a familiar scene captures the tensions of our cultural moment. A participant presents a nuanced argument on a complex topic, and another responds with a well-reasoned counterpoint. Yet, instead of engaging with the substance, the first participant runs the text through an AI detector and declares, “I won’t accept your response because it was written by a machine.” This gesture, rather than constituting a critique, effectively closes the door to dialogue. It raises a pressing question: is it legitimate to dismiss an idea solely because it was produced with algorithmic assistance?

Cultural Anxiety and Disruptive Technologies

This reaction is far from unprecedented. Historically, each technological innovation in the cultural sphere has provoked fears that the human element might be displaced. The printing press was initially accused of undermining memory and diminishing rhetorical skill. Photography was perceived as a threat to the status of painting, seemingly removing the need for manual dexterity. Electronic music was derided as mechanical noise when compared to the refined timbres of traditional instruments. In each case, society initially experienced apprehension, only to later incorporate these innovations as legitimate forms of creative expression.

Today, artificial intelligence evokes a similar anxiety: the fear that textual production will lose authenticity, and that the human author may be supplanted by an algorithm devoid of consciousness or intentionality.

Human-Centric Bias and the Figure of the Scriptor

The automatic dismissal of AI-generated texts reveals a deeply entrenched human-centric bias. For centuries, the human author has been regarded as the sole source of reason, creativity, and discursive legitimacy. Non-human productions have traditionally been considered derivative or inferior. Yet, since the mid-twentieth century, philosophical currents have challenged this hierarchy.

Roland Barthes, in The Death of the Author, argued that a text’s meaning does not derive from the writer’s biography but emerges through the reader’s interpretation: “to give an Author to a text is to impose a limit on it, to endow it with an ultimate meaning” (Barthes, 1968/1987, p. 73). In the same essay, he introduced the notion of the scriptor, who is born with the text and disappears in the act of writing. The scriptor’s role is not to express interiority but to activate a network of citations and cultural codes.

Viewed from this perspective, AI is no less legitimate than a human author. Both operate by recombining existing signs within a network of meaning. Jacques Derrida similarly stressed that origin does not confer legitimacy; what matters is the web of differences in which each sign is inscribed. The critical question, therefore, is not whether an argument is “authentically human,” but whether it is coherent and capable of generating meaning.

Benjamin and the Erosion of Aura

Walter Benjamin, in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, introduced the concept of aura—the unique, irreproducible presence of a work of art, tied to its temporal and spatial context. Photography and cinema, capable of infinite reproduction, eroded this singularity. As Benjamin observed, “what withers with the aura is its foundation in the here and now” (Benjamin, 1935/1969, p. 223).

AI-generated writing extends this transformation. It is no longer only the aura of the artistic object that diminishes but also that of the authorial subject. The human signature loses centrality, while focus shifts to circulation, relevance, and reception. The distinction is profound: photography reproduces an original, whereas AI produces potentially infinite variations. There is no single origin; each text exists as a combination within an inexhaustible network.

Killing the Digital Messenger: The Fallacy of Origin

Rejecting an argument solely because it was generated with AI, without considering its content, constitutes a variant of the ad hominem fallacy: attacking the source rather than evaluating the argument’s validity. If an argument is sound, well-supported, and relevant, its origin should not determine acceptance.

Philosophical discourse offers analogous cases. Many ideas have been dismissed because they were associated with morally or politically “problematic” authors, even when their reasoning remained logically consistent. Evaluating a text requires examining its premises and conclusions, not the biography of its author. Similarly, with AI-generated texts, the question is not the “purity” of human authorship but the coherence, rigor, and strength of the claims themselves.

Responsibility and the Validity of the Argument

The crucial consideration is not who composed a statement but how it functions within a critical exchange. Arguments must be assessed based on internal consistency, the reliability of evidence, and relevance to the discussion. The fact that a machine contributed to its formulation does not diminish its validity.

What does change is the regime of responsibility. AI cannot assume consequences or respond for its outputs. The human operator must verify information, ensure coherence, and ethically assume authorship. Legitimacy, therefore, resides not in the origin of the discourse but in the commitment of those who circulate it.

Conclusion

To dismiss an argument solely because it was drafted with AI constitutes a form of intellectual evasion. History demonstrates that each technical innovation initially meets resistance, then transforms notions of authenticity, and ultimately enriches culture. Rather than halting dialogue with a label, we should critically engage with content while assuming responsibility for its use.

Just as no one today disparages photography for not being “true painting,” it will soon seem anachronistic to reject a text simply because it was produced by artificial intelligence. The relevant question is not whether the author is human or machine, but whether the argument withstands rigorous critical scrutiny.

Bibliography

·         Barthes, R. (1968/1987). The Death of the Author. In Image-Music-Text (pp. 65–75). Hill and Wang.

·         Benjamin, W. (1935/1969). The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (H. Zohn, Trans.). In H. Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations (pp. 217–252). Schocken Books.

·         Derrida, J. (1967/1976). De la grammatologie. Les Éditions de Minuit.