AI Receptivity or AI Adoption Breadth? A Tool-Specific Reanalysis of the Lower-Literacy/Higher-Usage Link

AI is being used by people globally, but not everyone is using it in the same ways. Using a large-scale dataset of anonymized, de-identified, and privacy-scrubbed interactions with a widely available and free AI chatbot, we empirically characterize differences in early adopters' usage across countries. Schooling is the most common domain of use in most countries, particularly low-income countries, with a strong inverse association evident between schooling and country-level GDP. Leisure-related use, by contrast, is positively associated with country-level income. Language, we find, also shapes use: English-language interactions are overrepresented in places where the predominant languages were not well-served by existing models during the period of the study. Improving performance across languages may be a key factor, our work suggests, in whether this technology expands digital divides or enables leapfrogging.

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.

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.