The Epistemic Centaur: Philosophy of a New Knowing Subject
V. Nikolsky, D. Zemtsov, I. Yaskov
Vysshee Obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia June 24, 2026 DOI: 10.31992/0869-3617-2026-35-6-10-30 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Key points | Argues that Communicative Artificial Intelligence does not meet any of Clark and Chalmers's four criteria for the extended mind because it generates rather than stores knowledge, is semantically plastic, requires verification, and lacks a history of authorship. Proposes five principles of the "epistemic centaur" and contends that this human-AI alliance revives the figure of the Author rather than abolishing it, with implications for scientific epistemology, academic authorship, and pedagogy. |
Abstract
The article develops the concept of the epistemic centaur – an emergent alliance between human consciousness and Communicative Artificial Intelligence (ComAI). ComAI denotes a new generation of language models functioning according to the logic of communication: they sustain the context of dialogue, read the pragmatics of discourse, respond to the interlocutor’s intention, and initiate new semantic moves – as distinct from generative AI as a purely technical characteristic. The article demonstrates that ComAI does not satisfy any of the four criteria of the extended mind proposed by A. Clark and D. Chalmers, for structural reasons: it does not store but generates knowledge; it is not stable but semantically plastic; it requires verification rather than uncritical acceptance; and it produces meaning without a history of authorship. A critical analysis of distributed cognition theory (E. Hutchins) and Actor-Network Theory (B. Latour), together with their contemporary applications to AI, reveals both their explanatory potential and their limitations. On this basis, five principles of the epistemic centaur are formulated: communicative agency, emergence of meaning, dialogic maieutics, indivisibility of responsibility, and epistemic locality. In dialogue with the post-structuralist tradition (R. Barthes, M. Foucault), the article shows that the centaur situation does not abolish but revives the figure of the Author. A distinction is drawn between the functional and dysfunctional centaur, and the implications of the concept for the epistemology of science, academic authorship, and higher education pedagogy are articulated.