Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Conceptual synthesis uncovers biased authenticity judgments in AI-assisted creative work, highlighting an eight-dimensional framework for evaluating human agency and transformation.
Preprint, Version 1.9. This conceptual paper examines a paradox in contemporary judgments of creative authenticity: highly imitative human cultural production can retain presumptive legitimacy, while disclosure of generative-AI involvement can reduce perceived creativity, value, or authorship even when substantial human agency remains. The paper synthesizes research across creativity studies, psychology, human-AI collaboration, platform culture, authorship, labor, and generative AI. It develops the Algorithmic Authenticity Paradox, proposes an eight-dimensional Agency-Transformation Framework for evaluating human contribution in AI-assisted creative processes, advances the Generative Scarcity Shift hypothesis, and derives six falsifiable propositions for future empirical research. Rather than treating either human provenance or AI participation as sufficient evidence of creativity, the paper argues for evaluating intentionality, consequential agency, transformation, evaluation, selection, integration, contextualization, and responsibility. Author: Derek Rasor, Independent ResearcherVersion: 1.9Status: Preprint; not peer reviewed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Derek Rasor (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: