Hegemonikon and AI

PDF
Published: Sep 20, 2026
Updated: 2026-09-20
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/dia.46970
Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence AI Ethics Hegemonikon Cognitive Authorship Accountability Human Oversight Democratic Governance
Christos A. Koutsotasios
Ph.D. Candidate, International University of Greece
Elias Vavouras
Lecturer, University of Western Macedonia
Abstract

The central ethical problem raised by artificial intelligence is not whether AI systems can "reason" in a functional sense, but whether their use preserves a centre of judgment that can be held responsible. Beginning with large language models, it distinguishes linguistic fluency from scientific validity, ethical commitment, and accountability. Enter the Stoic concept of the hegemonikon—the capacity for assent that directs the mind—as a framework for understanding intellectual creation and decision-making. This framework is extended by analogy to institutions, clarifying when AI supports human judgment and when it replaces decision-making authority. The argument is applied to various fields and leads to five principles for the ethical use of AI: disclosure, attribution, critical engagement with AI outputs, meaningful human oversight, and augmentation rather than replacement. Responsible AI governance requires institutions to preserve decision-making structures that are identifiable, open to challenge and revision, and subject to accountability.

Article Details
  • Section
  • Articles
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT '21) (pp. 610-623). Association for Computing Machinery. [https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922](https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922?utm_source=gemini)
Brennan, T. (2005). The Stoic life: Emotions, duties, and fate. Oxford University Press.
Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine "thinks": Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 1-12. [https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512](https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512?utm_source=gemini)
Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). AI Ethics. MIT Press. [https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12549.001.0001](https://www.google.com/search?q=https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12549.001.0001&utm_source=gemini)
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228-239. [https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148](https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148?utm_source=gemini)
Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.
Danaher, J. (2016). The threat of algocracy: Reality, resistance and accommodation. Philosophy & Technology, 29(3), 245-268.
Danaher, J. (2023). The philosophical case against AI-generated legal citations. Law, Innovation and Technology, 15(2), 418-422. [https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2023.2245781](https://www.google.com/search?q=https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2023.2245781&utm_source=gemini)
Dastin, J. (2018, October 10). Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. Reuters.
Dawson, P. (2021). Defending assessment security in a digital world: Preventing e-cheating and supporting academic integrity in higher education. Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429324178](https://www.google.com/search?q=https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429324178&utm_source=gemini)
Dendrinos, M. (2026). The Relation between Human and Artificial Intellect in the Light of Key Philosophical Concepts. Dia-noesis: A Journal of Philosophy, 19(1), 37-64. [https://doi.org/10.12681/dia.45782](https://www.google.com/search?q=https://doi.org/10.12681/dia.45782&utm_source=gemini)
Diogenes Laertius. (1925). Lives of eminent philosophers (R. D. Hicks, Trans.; Vol. 2). Harvard University Press.
Eaton, S. E. (2021). Plagiarism in higher education: Tackling academic integrity for policy and practice. ABC-CLIO.
Epictetus. (1925). Discourses: Books 1 and 2 (W. A. Oldfather, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
Ferguson, A. G. (2017). The rise of big data policing: Surveillance, race, and the future of law enforcement. New York University Press.
Fischer, J. M., & Ravizza, M. (1998). Responsibility and control: A theory of moral responsibility. Cambridge University Press.
Floridi, L. (2023). The ethics of artificial intelligence: Principles, challenges, and opportunities. Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198883098.001.0001](https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198883098.001.0001?utm_source=gemini)
Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Machines, 30(4), 681-694. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1?utm_source=gemini)
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.). MIT Press.
Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57(7), 788-806. [https://doi.org/10.2307/378403](https://www.google.com/search?q=https://doi.org/10.2307/378403&utm_source=gemini)
Juvenal. (2004). Satires (S. M. Braund, Ed. & Trans.). Harvard University Press. (Original work published c. 110-127 CE).
Kourtoglou, O., Vavouras, E., & Sariannidis, N. (2024). The Stoic paradigm of ethics as a philosophical tool for objectifying the concepts of organizational ethics, corporate social responsibility, and corporate governance. Conatus Journal of Philosophy, 9(2), 119-143. [https://doi.org/10.12681/cjp.37932](https://www.google.com/search?q=https://doi.org/10.12681/cjp.37932&utm_source=gemini)
Lanham, T., Chen, A., Radhakrishnan, A., Steiner, B., Denison, C., Hernandez, D., Li, D., Durmus, E., Hubinger, E., Kernion, J., Lukošiūtė, K., Nguyen, K., Cheng, N., Schiefer, N., Rausch, O., Larson, R., McCandlish, S., Suri, S., Schulman, J.,... Amodei, D. (2023). Measuring faithfulness in chain-of-thought reasoning (arXiv Preprint No. 2307.13702). arXiv. [https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.13702](https://www.google.com/search?q=https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.13702&utm_source=gemini)
Lipton, Z. C. (2018). The mythos of model interpretability: In machine learning, the concept of interpretability is both important and slippery. ACM Queue, 16(3), 31-57. [https://doi.org/10.1145/3236386.3241340](https://www.google.com/search?q=https://doi.org/10.1145/3236386.3241340&utm_source=gemini)
Long, A. A., & Sedley, D. N. (1987). The Hellenistic philosophers: Translations of the principal sources, with philosophical commentary (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press.
Lum, K., & Isaac, W. (2016). To predict and serve? Significance, 13(5), 14-19.
Lunsford, A. A., & West, S. (1996). Intellectual property and composition studies. College Composition and Communication, 47(3), 383-411.
Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023).
Matthias, A. (2004). The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and Information Technology, 6(3), 175-183. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1?utm_source=gemini)
Millière, R., & Buckner, C. (2026). The philosophy of language models. Philosophy Compass, 21(3), Article e70095. [https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.70095](https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.70095?utm_source=gemini)
Mollick, E., & Mollick, L. (2023). Assigning AI: Seven approaches for students, with prompts (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 4475995). Social Science Research Network. [https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4475995](https://www.google.com/search?q=https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4475995&utm_source=gemini)
Obermeyer, Z., Powers, B., Vogeli, C., & Mullainathan, S. (2019). Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science, 366(6464), 447-453.
Pettit, P. (1997). Republicanism: A theory of freedom and government. Oxford University Press.
Reynolds, L., & McDonell, K. (2021). Prompt programming for large language models: Beyond the few-shot paradigm. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '21) (pp. 1-7). Association for Computing Machinery. [https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451760](https://www.google.com/search?q=https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451760&utm_source=gemini)
Shanahan, M. (2022). Talking about large language models (arXiv Preprint No. 2212.03551). arXiv. [https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.03551](https://www.google.com/search?q=https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.03551&utm_source=gemini)
Triantari, S., & Tzimas, G. (2026). The Limits of Algorithmic Decision-Making: Phronesis as the Measure of Leadership Judgement in Educational Administration. Dia-noesis: A Journal of Philosophy, 19(1), 277-300. [https://doi.org/10.12681/dia.45803](https://www.google.com/search?q=https://doi.org/10.12681/dia.45803&utm_source=gemini)
Turpin, M., Michael, J., Perez, E., & Bowman, S. R. (2023). Language models don't always say what they think: Unfaithful explanations in chain-of-thought prompting. In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, & S. Levine (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (NeurIPS 2023) (Vol. 36, pp. 74952-74965). Curran Associates, Inc. [https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.04388](https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.04388?utm_source=gemini)
Veale, M., & Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. (2021). Demystifying the draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Computer Law Review International, 22(4), 97-112.
Wei, J., Tay, Y., Bommasani, R., Raffel, C., Zoph, B., Borgeaud, S., Yogatama, D., Bosma, M., Zhou, D., Metzler, D., Chi, E. H., Hashimoto, T., Vinyals, O., Liang, P., Dean, J., & Fedus, W. (2022). Emergent abilities of large language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research. [https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.07682](https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.07682?utm_source=gemini)
Wu, H., & Hu, Y. (2026). AI Subjectivity Without Embodiment: A Humean Critique and the Reconsideration of the Human and Political. Dia-noesis: A Journal of Philosophy, 19(1), 345-374. [https://doi.org/10.12681/dia.45795](https://www.google.com/search?q=https://doi.org/10.12681/dia.45795&utm_source=gemini)