testimony-gap
Filtering by topic testimony-gap(1)Clear all filters
- PaperEdArXiv (OSF Preprints)20 Jul 2026
The Verification Paradox
Greg O'Keefe
The paper identifies three verification problems students face when using generative AI: correctness, depth, and calibration, with calibration being most consequential as it is a failure to recognize that anything requires checking. It argues that AI-sourced claims lack an accountable party, making this structural and permanent, and that oral defenses cannot fix the gap because ownership and validity are independent variables.
Original abstract
When a student uses generative AI to produce academic work, the capacity to verify that work fails for two parties, for two reasons, at two moments. The teacher, examining the finished artifact, cannot determine who performed the thinking. The student, situated inside the process of production, cannot determine whether the material the system has supplied is correct, deep, or safe to build upon. This paper concerns the second failure. It argues that a student operating outside their own domain of competence faces three distinct verification problems — correctness, depth, and calibration — and that the third is the most consequential, because it is not a failure to check but a failure to recognize that anything requires checking. The paper then argues that this predicament is not reducible to the familiar condition of novice ignorance. AI-sourced claims differ structurally from textbook-sourced claims in a way that is independent of quality: no accountable party stands behind any particular sentence, which removes the external correction mechanism that has historically made novice learning survivable. Following recent work on the testimony gap, the paper shows this difference to be structural rather than incidental, and therefore permanent: it does not resolve as the underlying systems improve. Finally, the paper argues that the most natural institutional response — verifying student understanding through oral defense — cannot close the gap, because ownership and validity are independent variables. A student can genuinely own a false claim. Any instrument that certifies ownership while remaining blind to validity does not merely fail to detect the problem; it launders it, converting an unverified claim into credentialed knowledge.