Epistemic Generativity: A Structural Definition

This paper introduces a formal definition of epistemic generativity as a structural property of evaluative systems. It distinguishes systems that optimize under a fixed evaluative structure from those capable, in principle, of operating on that structure itself. Let ℒ denote an evaluative function over a policy space Π, and 𝒪(S) the domain of operation of a system S. Contemporary AI systems are characterized by ℒ ∉ 𝒪(S): they select policies relative to externally specified criteria but do not revise those criteria. Epistemic generativity is defined as the threshold condition ℒ ∈ 𝒪(S) under admissibility constraints requiring endogenous, evidence-responsive operation over ℒ. The paper shows that prevailing uses of “generativity”—as behavioral novelty, compositional capacity, or scale—do not capture this distinction, as they remain consistent with optimization under fixed evaluation. It further clarifies the status of out-of-distribution (OOD) failure as performative deviation under ℒ, rather than normative evidence against ℒ, absent endogenous revision. On this account, behavioral sophistication does not entail evaluative authorship: intelligence, understood as effective optimization, is structurally distinct from epistemic agency. The contribution is deliberately minimal and classificatory. It provides a formal criterion for separating optimization from generativity and grounds implications for responsibility and governance. Where ℒ remains external to 𝒪(S), accountability attaches to those who specify, constrain, and update evaluative criteria. The analysis reframes current debates in machine learning and AI governance by locating the relevant threshold not in performance, but in control over evaluation itself.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-03-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19310914
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Epistemic Generativity: A Structural Definition

Peter Kahl
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Epistemic Generativity: A Structural Definition

Peter Kahl
article en

Abstract

This paper introduces a formal definition of epistemic generativity as a structural property of evaluative systems. It distinguishes systems that optimize under a fixed evaluative structure from those capable, in principle, of operating on that structure itself. Let ℒ denote an evaluative function over a policy space Π, and 𝒪(S) the domain of operation of a system S. Contemporary AI systems are characterized by ℒ ∉ 𝒪(S): they select policies relative to externally specified criteria but do not revise those criteria. Epistemic generativity is defined as the threshold condition ℒ ∈ 𝒪(S) under admissibility constraints requiring endogenous, evidence-responsive operation over ℒ. The paper shows that prevailing uses of “generativity”—as behavioral novelty, compositional capacity, or scale—do not capture this distinction, as they remain consistent with optimization under fixed evaluation. It further clarifies the status of out-of-distribution (OOD) failure as performative deviation under ℒ, rather than normative evidence against ℒ, absent endogenous revision. On this account, behavioral sophistication does not entail evaluative authorship: intelligence, understood as effective optimization, is structurally distinct from epistemic agency. The contribution is deliberately minimal and classificatory. It provides a formal criterion for separating optimization from generativity and grounds implications for responsibility and governance. Where ℒ remains external to 𝒪(S), accountability attaches to those who specify, constrain, and update evaluative criteria. The analysis reframes current debates in machine learning and AI governance by locating the relevant threshold not in performance, but in control over evaluation itself.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Lexmark (United States) (US), Lexicon Pharmaceuticals (United States) (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.