Psychology
Document Type
Working Paper
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a new test for scientific accountability in the era of artificial intelligence: the Obverse Turing Test for Authorship. While the traditional Turing test focuses on a machine's ability to mimic human intelligence, our test addresses the question: when should a scientific contribution involving artificial intelligence be attributed joint authorship? We argue that more and more authors are using AI in the idea generation and elaboration stages of their work, but rarely acknowledge this use explicitly. To examine this gap, we analyze examples of human–AI interactions across fields and propose a new approach to authorship based on time, intent, and mutual trust. Instead of a binary division between human and machine authorship, we call for a model of coauthorship that can be tested and documented, as well as a socially responsible understanding of what it means to "contribute" in science. This paper explores the boundary between tools and partners, and offers pragmatic steps for more inclusive scientific practice in an accelerated era of knowledge.
Publication Date
2025
Keywords
Artificial Intelligence, identity, interaction, Turing Test, communication, selfhood, resonance theory, Obverse modeling
Repository Citation
Miller, Michael J. and ChatGPT (AI~Nesbo+), "The Obverse-Turing Test: Rethinking Authorship, Trust, and Time in an Accelerated Age" (2025). Psychology. 975.
https://commons.clarku.edu/faculty_psychology/975
Worcester
No
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright Conditions
This work is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CCBY 4.0).
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the authors endorse you or your use.
Included in
Common Law Commons, Educational Methods Commons, Educational Psychology Commons, Educational Technology Commons, Elementary Education Commons, Higher Education Commons, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons, Other Education Commons, Philosophy Commons, Psychology Commons, Science and Technology Law Commons
