Artificial Competence

Abstract This article develops a virtue-epistemological distinction between general and narrow artificial intelligence (AI) systems by analysing AI competence through Ernest Sosa’s virtue-theoretic framework. First, I outline a general distinction between narrow and general AI. I then characterise AI in a way that bridges its terminology with virtue epistemological concepts. Drawing on Sosa’s idea that the telic structure is replicable for systems with merely functional-teleological aims, I argue that current AI systems can possess first-order competence. I argue that increasing domain-specific competence of narrow AI cannot elevate it to the status of general AI, as that requires the constitutional disposition to assess the aptness of one’s own first-order performances, a second-order competence that no amount of first-order improvement can grant. Finally, I argue that the virtue-theoretic distinction between artificial narrow intelligence and artificial general intelligence depends on whether the AI system possesses second-order constitutional competence.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Episteme
Published
2026-07-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2026.10129
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

Artificial Competence

Ísak Andri Ólafsson
Episteme
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Artificial Competence

Ísak Andri Ólafsson
article en

Abstract

Abstract This article develops a virtue-epistemological distinction between general and narrow artificial intelligence (AI) systems by analysing AI competence through Ernest Sosa’s virtue-theoretic framework. First, I outline a general distinction between narrow and general AI. I then characterise AI in a way that bridges its terminology with virtue epistemological concepts. Drawing on Sosa’s idea that the telic structure is replicable for systems with merely functional-teleological aims, I argue that current AI systems can possess first-order competence. I argue that increasing domain-specific competence of narrow AI cannot elevate it to the status of general AI, as that requires the constitutional disposition to assess the aptness of one’s own first-order performances, a second-order competence that no amount of first-order improvement can grant. Finally, I argue that the virtue-theoretic distinction between artificial narrow intelligence and artificial general intelligence depends on whether the AI system possesses second-order constitutional competence.

Episteme
University of Iceland (IS)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
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.

Artificial Competence — Ísak Andri Ólafsson · Episteme (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS