AI chatbots are increasingly stepping into roles as collaborators or teachers in analyzing, visualizing, and reasoning through data and domain problem. Yet, AI's default assistant mode with its comprehensive and one-off responses may undermine opportunities for practitioners to develop literacy through their own thinking, inducing cognitive passivity. Drawing on evidence from empirical studies and theories, we argue that disrupting cognitive passivity necessitates a nuanced approach: rather than simply making AI promote deliberative thinking, there is a need for more dynamic and adaptive strategy through cognitive alignment -- a framework that characterizes effective human-AI interaction as a function of alignment between users' cognitive demand and AI's interaction mode. In the framework, we provide the mapping between AI's interaction mode (transmissive or deliberative) and users' cognitive demand (receptive or deliberative), otherwise leading to either cognitive passivity or friction. We further discuss implications and offer open questions for future research on data literacy.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Study overview. The current AI’s default mode, producing ready-made responses at a one-off response, easily induces cognitive passivity, harming opportunities for practitioners to foster data literacy. Beyond simply transforming AI into practicing reflective thinking, we suggest that this should be understood as a function of alignment between user’s cognitive demand and AI’s interaction mode. We provide a high-level description of potential cases where (mis)aligned cases can lead to a successful AI-assisted data analysis or different types of cognitive effects.
Recent empirical research by Sharma et al. (2026) demonstrated that AI assistant interactions carry meaningful potential for situational human disempowerment, including reality distortion, value judgment distortion, and action distortion. While this work provides a critical diagnosis of the problem, concrete pedagogical interventions remain underexplored. I present an AI literacy framework built around eight cross-cutting Learning Outcomes (LOs), developed independently through teaching practice and subsequently found to align with Sharma et al.'s disempowerment taxonomy. I report a case study from a publicly available online course, where a co-teaching methodology--with AI serving as an active voice co-instructor--was used to deliver this framework. Drawing on inoculation theory (McGuire, 1961)--a well-established persuasion research framework recently applied to misinformation prebunking by the Cambridge school (van der Linden, 2022; Roozenbeek & van der Linden, 2019)--I argue that AI literacy cannot be acquired through declarative knowledge alone, but requires guided exposure to AI failure modes, including the sycophantic validation and authority projection patterns identified by Sharma et al. This application of inoculation theory to AI-specific distortion is, to my knowledge, novel. I discuss the convergence between the pedagogically-derived framework and Sharma et al.'s empirically-derived taxonomy, and argue that this convergence--two independent approaches arriving at similar problem descriptions--strengthens the case for both the diagnosis and the proposed educational response.
AI systems are increasingly employed as decision aids, decision delegates, or autonomous decision-makers. This position paper argues that in many settings, particularly high-stakes decision-making, we need accurate cognitively-aligned AI systems that reason similarly to their users, and faithfully communicate their reasoning. We review evidence that cognitive alignment improves understandability and trustworthiness, and provide new survey data showing that many users find cognitive alignment "essential" when an AI's rationale for a judgment or action is important to them. We outline the gaps between existing alignment methods and what is needed to achieve cognitive alignment, and present a research agenda to address these gaps. We argue that cognitive misalignment represents a likely impediment to AI adoption in many envisioned applications, and that addressing it is important for creating AI systems on which users are both willing and justified to rely.
Vijay Keswani, Breanna K. Nguyen, Cyrus Cousins +3
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, IIT Delhi · Department of Philosophy, Duke University · Department of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University +1
As generative artificial intelligence becomes one of the most significant systems of knowledge production in our society today, questions relating to who can access and shape that production grow increasingly important in our discourse. This paper argues that the existing frameworks for AI literacy, which are dominated by technical competency and responsible-use principles, are insufficient because they enforce a "consumer" orientation toward AI rather than fostering genuine epistemic agency. Based upon Foucault's concept of power-knowledge, Freire's pedagogy of critical consciousness, and scholarship of digital literacy, this paper proposes a reconceptualization of AI literacy as a critical practice that equips individuals not just to use AI systems, but to critically evaluate them, resist their structuring assumptions, and participate in their governance. The paper further argues that unequal access to AI tools in society recapitulates longstanding epistemic injustices, and that a literacy framework oriented toward empowerment must account for these structural inequities. A three-part framework of AI literacy based on the notions of contextual use, critical interrogation, and participatory governance frames this literacy as a cultivation of epistemic "agents" rather than the training of competent consumers of AI-generated information.