Authors : Sandhya Nandan; Dr. Shabina Khan

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 12 - December

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/y8m9jzj9

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/3znaf28c

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25dec1324

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : The rapid integration of generative artificial intelligence into writing practices has elicited renewed concern about authorship, creativity, and intellectual responsibility. Prevailing debates often revolve around the question of whether machines can produce creative texts; yet, such framings overlook a more basic transformation: namely, a shift in the cognitive processes of writers as they compose in concert with algorithmic systems. This paper positions AI-assisted writing as both a cognitive and an ethical issue. It argues that the main impact of algorithms is not about the production of text, per se, but about the changing of creative thought processes. Combining theories of authorship, cognitive storytelling, extended mind concepts, and posthumanist perspectives, this analysis examines how AI shapes intention, judgment, and the ineffable struggle of writing. Synthesizing recent literature, including Indian studies published after 2015, it shows that AI helps thinking when used thoughtfully, by facilitating idea generation and experimenting with different stylistic options. The evidence also underlines hazards: erosion of explicit intent, dimming the author’s voice, and how thinking is reduced when suggestions are adopted without critical assessment. While the paper does argue that the challenge of authorship lies less in a lack of creativity than in transformations to the ways in which writers create, driven by shifting distributions of responsibility and control between humans and machines. The distinction drawn between thinking with and thinking through machines establishes a theoretical framework for responsibly integrating AI into the practice of writing in such a way as to preserve the accountability of an author. It concludes with a prescriptive stance for a moral approach to authorship that foregrounds reflexivity, cultural literacy, and prudent judgment in an era of AI-assisted writing.

Keywords : AI-Mediated Writing, Authorship and Intentionality, Creative Cognition, Extended Mind Theory, Algorithmic Creativity, Ethics of Literary Authorship.

References :

1. Barthes R. The death of the author. Aspen. 1967;5–6:142–148.
2. Foucault M. What is an author? In: Rabinow P, editor. The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon Books; 1984. p. 101–120.
3. Bennett A. The author still matters. J Theory Cult Stud. 2005;19(3):147–155. doi:10.1177/0263276405056008
4. Herman D. Storytelling and the sciences of mind. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 2013.
5. Clark A, Chalmers D. The extended mind. Analysis. 1998;58(1):7–19. doi:10.1093/analys/58.1.7
6. Menary R. Cognitive integration and the extended mind. Philos Phenomenol Res. 2010;81(2):227–254. doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00331.x
7. Heersmink R. Distributed cognition and distributed morality. Ethics Inf Technol. 2017;19(2):85–98. doi:10.1007/s10676-017-9413-6
8. Hayles NK. How we think: Digital media and contemporary technogenesis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2012.
9. Braidotti R. The posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2013.
10. Boden MA. Creativity and artificial intelligence. Artif Intell. 1998;103(1–2):347–356. doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(98)00055-1
11. Floridi L, Cowls J. A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harv Data Sci Rev. 2019;1(1). doi:10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1
12. Kantosalo A, Riihiaho S, Toivanen J, et al. Interaction evaluation for human–computer co-creativity. Comput Hum Behav. 2015;52:265–276. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.010
13. Jakesch M, Buschek D, Zalmanson L, et al. Human–AI collaboration in creative writing. Proc ACM Hum-Comput Interact. 2023;7(CSCW1):1–28. doi:10.1145/3579500
14. Novak J. Creativity, difficulty, and the role of struggle in artistic practice. Creat Res J. 2018;30(2):123–131. doi:10.1080/10400419.2018.1446506
15. Das R. Artificial intelligence, authorship, and academic integrity in India. J Acad Ethics. 2022;20(4):451–467. doi:10.1007/s10805-022-09427-9
16. Bhat P, Kaur A. Ethical challenges of AI-assisted writing in Indian higher education. AI Soc. 2023;38(4):1469–1481. doi:10.1007/s00146-022-01534-6
17. Chatterjee S, Dey N. Generative AI, creativity, and cultural labour in the Global South. Technol Soc. 2024;76:102351. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102351
18. Sengupta S. Language models, epistemic bias, and Indian literary expression. J Cult Anal Soc Change. 2022;7(2):1–15. doi:10.20897/jcasc/12345