VET: A Framework for Analyzing AI Discourse

Public discourse about artificial intelligence (AI) often uses anthropomorphic language: language that attributes human capabilities and characteristics to the system. This practice has been criticized for setting misleading expectations, inflating claims, and fueling hype around AI, which may distort public understanding of AI and impact policy priorities. We study the effects of anthropomorphic framing by comparing changes in participants' perceptions (N=815) when reading passages with and without anthropomorphic language, designed to reflect realistic public-facing AI discourse. We further examine whether these effects differ across two types of AI technologies -- large language models and recommendation systems -- and measure changes in perceptions of AI across several dimensions that are prominent in current public discourse. In a separate condition using a text that explicitly discusses the dangers of AI, we show that individuals' views of AI can shift in response to reading a text; yet in the main conditions of the experiment, where we compare anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic descriptions, we find that whether the text uses anthropomorphic language does not substantially affect participants' perceptions of AI. Our results indicate that any immediate effects on public opinions of AI are modest, although they leave open the possibility that anthropomorphic language could have an effect in naturalistic settings, or over gradual, continued exposure.

Artificial intelligence (AI) literacy is increasingly recognized as a foundational competency for all university graduates. Yet students' engagement with AI tools often clusters at two extremes: avoidance driven by fear, mistrust, ethical concern, or lack of access, and uncritical reliance that produces fluent output while masking misunderstanding. Existing AI literacy frameworks provide valuable competency definitions, but most offer limited guidance for diagnosing where learners begin and how they progress toward responsible, critical engagement. This paper proposes a five-stage AI Literacy Continuum: 0) Not Yet Engaged, 1) Uncritical Use, 2) Informed Use, 3) Critical Evaluation, and 4) Improvement --that describes developmental orientations toward AI use in higher education. The continuum complements dimensional frameworks by providing educators with a practical diagnostic and instructional pathway aligned with international frameworks, including UNESCO and OECD. We present a design-based implementation case from North Carolina State University, where credit-bearing courses and intensive hands-on workshops engaged more than 330 participants between Fall 2024 and Spring 2026. Because the implementation did not use a validated pre/post instrument or comparison group, we frame the findings as observational and practice-based: participants exhibited behaviors consistent with movement from non-engagement or uncritical use toward informed engagement, while sustained and discipline-embedded experiences produced stronger evidence of critical evaluation and improvement-oriented practice. We discuss curricular pathways, opportunity considerations, assessment strategies, and argue that AI literacy should be understood not as tool adoption alone but as a developmental capacity to understand, evaluate, and responsibly apply AI systems in disciplinary and societal contexts.

We introduce the Meaning Intelligence Framework (MIF), a nine-dimension annotation and evaluation schema for Nigerian public discourse that separates surface sentiment from true communicative intent. Existing benchmarks for Nigerian languages, including NaijaSenti and AfriSenti, treat sentiment classification as a three-way polarity task. We argue that the dominant failure mode of AI systems on Nigerian discourse is not translation failure but context failure: the same utterance carries opposite pragmatic force depending on speaker, audience, and situation. The MIF operationalises this insight across nine scored dimensions: register, surface sentiment, true intent, irony, coded subtext, risk tier, annotator confidence, speaker emotion, and recommended communications action. We construct a 30-item calibration dataset spanning Standard English, Nigerian English, Nigerian Pidgin, and code-mixed registers, and evaluate three frontier language models (Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-5, and Gemini 2.5 Pro) under zero-shot and schema-informed prompting conditions. Two headline findings emerge. First, the Register Gap: zero-shot register classification accuracy is 33.3%, rising to 73.3% (+40 points) when the model receives the MIF schema in-context. Second, model capability and cultural competence are decoupled: GPT-5 (MIS 67.8) and Gemini 2.5 Pro (MIS 65.4) score lower than Flash (MIS 78.6), and neither benefits from schema-informed prompting. We release the framework specification, annotation guidelines, and calibration set to support reproducibility.