A new article from me was accepted for publication in the journal AI & Society and is available now for early access. It is titled \u201cCommodification in academic writing: a comparative analysis of two LLM apps\u201d. It compares the affordances of ChatGPT and Microsoft Word Copilot in terms of Albert Borgmann\u2019s concept of commodification. The article is published as open access and the abstract reads like this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nThis paper investigates the impact of Large Language Model (LLM)-assisted writing on reflective thinking, building on existing adaptations of Albert Borgmann\u2019s device paradigm to Don Ihde\u2019s postphenomenology. Academic writing can facilitate engagement with our beliefs and pre-judgments, making it highly conducive to reflective thinking. However, generative AI tools, such as OpenAI\u2019s ChatGPT and Microsoft Word Copilot, may undermine such meaningful engagement as they \u2018disburden\u2019 users of the effort inherent in reflective writing. Still, we fall short when we leave unexamined the kinds of uses each writing app inclines its users to pursue. Despite using the same LLM, a cross-comparison reveals that the user interface (UI) design of ChatGPT and Word Copilot affords distinct forms of interaction: ChatGPT\u2019s UI design may, in principle, facilitate reflective engagement through conversational interactions, prompting users to formulate and engage with their beliefs on a given topic. In contrast, Word Copilot emphasizes automated document production, making a similar kind of engaging use unviable. As a conceptual basis for the argument, this paper extends Ihde\u2019s history of writing \u2018technics\u2019 and brings it together with recent conceptual developments in postphenomenology by discussing the apps in terms of \u2018quasi-materiality\u2019 of application UIs and the affordances they offer as part of \u2018multistabilities\u2019. This paper concludes with a call for academic writers to critically assess how their tools mediate academic writing and thinking processes, arguing that choosing a writing tool for academic writing has ceased to be a matter of personal preference and has become one of academic ethos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00146-025-02446-z<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n