The right to difficulty and democratic governance of artificial intelligence in education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31391/GMLN3461Keywords:
generative artificial intelligence, philosophy of education, cognitive delegation, formative difficulty, technological democracyAbstract
The objective is to determine which operations may be delegated to generative artificial intelligence without displacing the experiences through which capacities are developed and learners become accountable to others. The methodology is based on a philosophical-normative reconstruction and draws on empirical evidence as a means of examining the argument rather than as an independent foundation for the thesis. The approach conceives of education as the development and appropriation of capacities—not merely the production of outputs—and examines delegation in terms of future autonomy, epistemic agency, relational responsibility, and public accountability. The analysis develops two concepts: the “right to formative difficulty”, a prima facie institutional claim against the unjustified substitution of operations essential to capacity development; and “governable dependence”, understood as a form of mediation that is intelligible, contestable, and compatible with retaining authority over educational aims and evaluative criteria. Both concepts are examined through three justificatory tests. The article concludes that AI may legitimately participate in distributed cognitive practices, but should neither replace, without justification, the experiences through which capacities are developed nor independently determine educational decisions affecting individuals. The democratisation of AI in education requires institutional guarantees of participation, contestation, and the possibility of withdrawing from or replacing these systems.
Downloads
References
Arendt, H. (2006). Between past and future: Eight exercises in political thought. Penguin. Original publicado en 1961.
Barnard, M. J. y Crome, K. (2026). The plagiarist in the machine? Generative AI and the will to fail. Future Humanities, vol. 4, núm. 2, e70030. https://doi.org/10.1002/fhu2.70030
Bastani, H., Bastani, O., Sungu, A., Ge, H., Kabakcı, Ö. y Mariman, R. (2025). Generative AI without guardrails can harm learning: Evidence from high school mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 122, núm. 26, e2422633122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2422633122
Bellomo, S. T. y Sun, K. (2026). Can artificial intelligence foster deep personalization in education? Future Humanities, vol. 4, e70028. https://doi.org/10.1002/fhu2.70028
Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Paradigm Publishers.
Bjork, E. L. y Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. En M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M. Hough y J. R. Pomerantz (eds.). Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 56–64). Worth Publishers.
Broadfoot, P. y Rockey, J. (2025). Generative AI and the social functions of educational assessment. Oxford Review of Education, vol. 51, núm. 2, pp. 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2025.2455549
Callon, M., Lascoumes, P. y Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy (G. Burchell, traducción). MIT Press.
Carter, J. A. (2020). Cognitive goods, open futures and the epistemology of education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, vol. 54, núm. 2, pp. 449–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12420
Carter, J. A. (2018). Autonomy, cognitive offloading, and education. Educational Theory, vol. 68, núm. 6, pp. 657–673. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12338
Clark, A. y Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, vol. 58, núm. 1, pp. 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7
Council of the European Union (2026, 29 de junio). Artificial intelligence: Council gives final green light to simplify and streamline rules. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/06/29/artificial-intelligence-council-gives-final-green-light-to-simplify-and-streamline-rules/
Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.
Darwall, S. (2006). The second-person standpoint: Morality, respect, and accountability. Harvard University Press.
Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and education. Touchstone. Original publicado en 1938.
European Parliament and Council (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence. Official Journal of the European Union, 2024/1689. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj
Fan, Y., Tang, L., Le, H., Shen, K., Tan, S., Zhao, Y., Shen, Y., Li, X. y Gašević, D. (2025). Beware of metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning motivation, processes, and performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 56, núm. 2, pp. 489–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13544
Feenberg, A. (2010). Between reason and experience: Essays in technology and modernity. MIT Press.
Feinberg, J. (1980). The child's right to an open future. En W. Aiken y H. LaFollette (eds.). Whose child? Children's rights, parental authority, and state power (pp. 124–153). Rowman & Littlefield.
Furze, L., Perkins, M., Roe, J. y MacVaugh, J. (2024). The AI Assessment Scale (AIAS) in action: A pilot implementation of GenAI-supported assessment. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 40, núm. 4, pp. 38–55. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.9434
Hohfeld, W. N. (1919). Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning and other legal essays. Yale University Press.
Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality. Harper & Row.
Jasanoff, S. (ed.) (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Routledge.
Kestin, G., Miller, K., Klales, A., Milbourne, T. y Ponti, G. (2025). AI tutoring outperforms in-class active learning: An RCT introducing a novel research-based design in an authentic educational setting. Scientific Reports, vol. 15, 17458. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-97652-6
Kouppanou, A. (2026). Questioning the machine: Education, thinking, writing, and large language models. Educational Philosophy and Theory. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2025.2610999
Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. En W. E. Bijker y J. Law (eds.). Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 225–258). MIT Press.
Melumad, S. y Yun, J. H. (2025). Experimental evidence of the effects of large language models versus web search on depth of learning. PNAS Nexus, vol. 4, núm. 10, pgaf316. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf316
Miao, F. y Cukurova, M. (2024). AI competency framework for teachers. Unesco. https://doi.org/10.54675/ZJTE2084
Miao, F., Shiohira, K. y Lao, N. (2024). AI competency framework for students. Unesco. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/ai-competency-framework-students
Nikolaidis, A. C. (2021). A third conception of epistemic injustice. Studies in Philosophy and Education, vol. 40, núm. 4, pp. 381–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-021-09760-1
Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos (OCDE) (2026). OECD Digital Education Outlook 2026: Exploring effective uses of generative AI in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/062a7394-en
Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos (OCDE) (2025). Results from TALIS 2024: The state of teaching. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/90df6235-en
Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos y Comisión Europea (2026). Empowering learners for the age of AI: An AI literacy framework for primary and secondary education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/65cd27d4-en
Pietarinen, A.-V. y Shi, S. (2026). Manipulation and deception in generative AI-mediated education: Preserving epistemic agency, critical thinking, and creativity. Postdigital Science and Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-026-00644-6
Rivera-Novoa, A. y Duarte Arias, D. A. (2026). Generative artificial intelligence and extended cognition in science learning contexts. Science & Education, vol. 35, pp. 755–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-025-00660-1
Seung, Y. y Basham, J. D. (2026). Cognitive offloading in the age of generative AI: What does it mean for students with learning disabilities? Learning Disability Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487261439132
Siebold, J.-P., Witschas, A. y Mühlhoff, R. (2026). When the future feels foreclosed: AI resignation and the power to act. Future Humanities, vol. 4, e70026. https://doi.org/10.1002/fhu2.70026
Smith, S. J. (2026). Generative artificial intelligence, formative epistemic injustice, and educators' solutions. Studies in Philosophy and Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-026-10100-4
Stiegler, B. (2010). Taking care of youth and the generations (S. Barker, traducción). Stanford University Press.
Taylor, M. R. (2026). The obligation to restrict AI in student writing. Journal of Philosophy of Education, qhaf097. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopedu/qhaf097
Tishenina, M. (2026). Generative AI and the irreducible role of teachers as callers into subjectness: A placebo-nocebo-treatment framework. Studies in Philosophy and Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-026-10051-w
Vendrell, M. y Johnston, S.-K. (2026). Scaffolding critical thinking with generative AI: Design principles for integrating large language models in higher education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 10, 100572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100572
Wang, G., Wang, W., Yang, D. y Ren, J. (2026). Generative AI, cognitive offloading, and learner agency in higher education: A scoping review. Behavioral Sciences, vol. 16, núm. 7, 1150. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs16071150
Weber-Wulff, D., Anohina-Naumeca, A., Bjelobaba, S., Foltýnek, T., Guerrero-Dib, J., Popoola, O., Šigut, P. y Waddington, L. (2023). Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text. International Journal for Educational Integrity, vol. 19, 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00146-z
Zhu, Q., Li, X., Dong, Y., Chang, P. y Fan, M. (2026). Not all cognitive offloading is equal: Distinguishing dependent and autonomous offloading to generative AI. Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 17, 1878629. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1878629
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Sinéctica
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license.
Authors who publish in Sinéctica agree to the following terms:
The authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication of the authorized work simultaneously under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows others to share the work as long as both the authorship of the work and the initial publication in this journal are acknowledged.
Authors may enter into additional separate contractual agreements for non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the journal (e.g., publishing in an institutional repository or a book), with acknowledgement of initial publication in this journal.
Authors are allowed to publish their work in institutional repositories or on their own website before and during the submission process, as it may generate productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of the published work.
Explanatory note: As of 2017 Sinéctica is governed by the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 3.0 International License, a version that standardizes licenses internationally.
Articles published between 1992 and 2016 are covered by a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license, which allows a work to be shared and distributed non-commercially and with acknowledgement of the author, but prohibits modification of the original creation.
