Artificial Intelligence Literacy

Children increasingly interact with AI chatbots, making trust calibration essential to AI literacy. Prior research has examined children's trust in AI mainly as users evaluating systems built by others, rather than as designers of their own chatbots. We developed a chatbot-building environment with adjustable trust-relevant traits (e.g., confidence, transparency, formality, assertiveness), rules, and persona. We conducted mixed-methods study with 115 learners (ages 8-18) who made 119 chatbots. We examined how children configured their chatbots, reasoned about trustworthiness, and how closely chatbot behavior aligned with their designs. Younger students (age 10-13) set significantly higher confidence than older students (age 14-18), and some deliberately built chatbots that gave wrong answers on purpose, yet still called them trustworthy, arguing that a chatbot does what it was built to do. Younger students equated trust with purpose-fulfillment, while older students linked it to transparent, calibrated design. Students also calibrated academic chatbots to be more transparent and formal than hobby chatbots. We identify seven design dimensions describing what children believe makes a chatbot trustworthy, and discuss implications for AI literacy tools.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is changing how students learn, yet the roles of course context, cognitive reliance, evaluation literacy, and early reliance remain underexplored. Using survey responses from 118 students across 12 AI-related courses at our institution, we examined differences in GenAI use and perceived learning experiences. We identified four user clusters: high-use students reporting many benefits, light users reporting less reliance and fewer benefits, and two moderate-use groups reporting different levels of benefit. We also found significant differences between free- and premium-version users, single- and multiple-tool users, and students experiencing different instructor policies. In multivariable regression models, academic benefit was associated with early reliance and academic task support; positive impact was associated with cognitive reliance, academic task support, confidence in GenAI reliability, and instructor policy; and negative impact was associated with early reliance and attitudinal change. The association between early reliance and negative impact became stronger as evaluation literacy increased. Finally, perceptions of GenAI-enhanced learning appear to reflect cognitive, performance, and self-efficacy benefits, while concerns about stress and diminished critical thinking are associated with lower perceived learning benefits. These findings suggest that institutions need better policies to address such inequities so that institutions can enable students to benefit from increasingly capable AI systems.

We report the results of a Turing Test conducted in Finland in the Finnish language. Because languages and cultural contexts are unevenly represented in LLM training data, we expected the model (ChatGPT 5.2) to perform worse in a Finnish-language Turing Test than in previously studied English-language US contexts. We also present model-generated role prompting as a replicable technique for conducting comparative LLM-based Turing Tests designed to improve construct validity. Contrary to our expectations, the LLM passed the Finnish Turing Test. A prominent source of error was participants' reliance on linguistic cues, particularly colloquial Finnish, as markers of human authorship. We reframe the Turing Test from a test of intelligence to a comparative method for examining whether an AI system can display credible membership in a particular social world. Because its outcome reflects model capabilities, prompted identity, insider competence among human participants, and their AI literacy, the method provides a useful probe of the human-machine boundary across domains.

Powerful technologies labeled ``AI''-without sufficient epistemic caution-are already reshaping political and private life, bringing both new dangers and new opportunities for citizen participation. These range from electoral and legislative engagement to the most ambitious form: political co-creation through citizens' assemblies. Large Language Models (LLMs) could support such processes through moderation, translation, facilitation, summarization, and writing assistance. But this potential remains largely unrealized. The Democratic Commons project takes a fundamentally interdisciplinary approach-from philosophy to computer science-to evaluate LLMs against five proposed democratic principles. At its core, the project is driven by the question of political bias: under what conditions can LLMs be used democratically within forms of citizen participation that are them- selves still largely experimental? Addressing these socio-technical questions requires grounding in political theory and, more broadly, in philosophy-disciplines that provide the normative frameworks without which the democratic evaluation of AI systems cannot be mean- ingfully conducted.

Researchers assessing competent generative-AI use at work must choose among self-reports, objective tests, and measures of oversight and reliance. We conducted a structured, seeded review of 24 focal empirical publications, starting from the 2024 COSMIN-based review and adding a targeted update through 17 August 2026. We grouped the measures into four domains: knowledge and use, epistemic oversight, reliance calibration, and operational control of tool-using agents. In an exploratory meta-analysis, we pooled three direct subjective-objective correlations from one research program (REML r = .055; Hartung-Knapp 95% CI [-.047, .156]; combined reported N = 2,765). We could not resolve a discrepancy between the largest study's reported correlation and p-value, leaving its weight uncertain. Adding a synthetic mean of 12 cross-factor correlations from a fourth study gave r = .079 (95% CI [-.025, .181]). This sensitivity analysis concerns a broader comparison. From this small evidence base, we cannot establish a population correlation, validate workplace cutoffs, or justify substituting self-ratings for performance scores. We identified tests of foundation knowledge (AICOS-S and GLAT) and measures of verification, reliance, trust, and dependency. We found no validated individual-level instrument in the focal corpus that tests the full combination of agent scope, permissions, recovery, state isolation, independent review, and evidence-based closure; some cover subsets. We propose a four-layer workplace battery with non-compensatory decision rules, but have not tested its thresholds or whether it improves on other assessment approaches.

AI literacy provides foundational competencies that support ethical, transparent, and sustainable technological development, although higher-order capabilities such as governance, critical evaluation, and strategic decision-making extend beyond basic literacy into advanced levels of AI competency. This study positions AI literacy as a governance capacity that complements and strengthens all 17 SDGs. It introduces a six-level taxonomy of artificial intelligence reasoning and ethics that extends traditional learning models by incorporating ethical judgement and strategic foresight. This taxonomy forms the foundation of an integrated framework linking education, governance, and sustainable development. A survey of 300 participants from diverse professional backgrounds within a national context which reveals strong technical awareness but limited ethical and governance readiness, highlighting critical gaps in public capacity to manage artificial intelligence responsibly. Findings show that ethical reasoning and reflective thinking are the strongest predictors of sustainable and trustworthy artificial intelligence use. The study proposed to embed literacy-based competencies into curricula, institutional policies, and governance mechanisms to accelerate equitable and responsible progress toward sustainable development goals

The rapid adoption of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT has sparked intense debate about their risks and opportunities for education, as well as the ways researchers should investigate them. In this paper, we approach these discussions through an analogy with the Thermomix, a smart kitchen appliance that has similarly provoked both enthusiasm and critique. By mapping Thermomix use cases onto examples of learning with generative AI, and situating them within the ICAP and SAMR frameworks, we show how different modes of tool use can either support or undermine meaningful engagement and learning. The Thermomix metaphor underscores that the central question is not whether learners employ AI, but how such use shapes their learning processes. In doing so, we provide a conceptual lens for researchers and practitioners to critically examine - and more effectively guide - the integration of generative AI into educational practice.

LLMs can imitate how people write, which raises concerns about impersonation, trust, and detection in social settings. These concerns are especially important for adolescents, who use generative AI frequently but may struggle to recognize it. We introduce \textit{DoppelBot}, a cooperative social deduction game designed to study how young people detect and respond to AI impersonation. Through studies with middle schoolers, we investigate whether a DoppelBot prompts reflection on privacy and impersonation, how repeated exposure affects AI-detection accuracy as agents become more personalized, and which strategies students use to identify AI doppelgängers. We find that students' detection accuracy improves over time, driven by a shift from relying on linguistic cues to leveraging shared social and contextual signals. Students also demonstrated an understanding of AI limitations such as embodiment and reflected on broader issues such as data privacy. To support future research, we release an anonymized dataset of game transcripts and voting behavior.

Artificial intelligence tools for education and language support are increasingly framed as scalable responses to access gaps in under-resourced communities. Yet the infrastructure underlying these tools, including training corpora, tokenization schemes, evaluation benchmarks, and deployment architectures, can systematically disadvantage speakers of underrepresented languages before a model is trained. This paper examines these structural barriers through Bengali, one of the world's most widely spoken languages, focusing on AI-assisted education in low-connectivity environments. We identify four interlocking failures: a severe web presence gap, with Bengali accounting for less than 0.5% of global web content despite representing nearly 4% of the global population; a 67:1 training-token deficit between English and Bengali in major multilingual corpora; a tokenization penalty associated with Bengali's alphasyllabary script that compounds the data deficit through higher token fertility; and connectivity exclusion, with individual internet penetration at 36.5% in rural areas compared with 71.4% in urban areas. These failures reflect longstanding resource-allocation decisions, institutional priorities, and design defaults that did not center underrepresented languages in mainstream AI development. We argue that dataset scarcity should be understood as a structural barrier rather than an isolated technical limitation, and that offline-first design should be treated as an equity-oriented infrastructure strategy. We conclude with directions for linguistics and AI research aimed at reducing these structural inequalities.

As LLM-based agents with user-instructed goals are becoming widely deployed, they increasingly encounter each other in strategic interactions, and face challenges of finding mutually beneficial outcomes. Prior literature has argued that cooperation problems such as the Prisoner's Dilemma are resolvable in settings where agents know they follow very similar decision making patterns, as for example in monocultural AI ecosystems. Following that line of work, this paper introduces the first framework for evaluating LLM decision making when agents are provided with graded similarity signals. Among our findings, we establish that different LLM models vary drastically in how they navigate similarity signals, with some modern models showing consistent behavior across cooperation problems, payoff structures, and prompt framing. Perhaps surprisingly, our experiments also show that the dataset based on which the similarity signal is computed has small to no impact on induced cooperation, and that LLM models systematically self-identify as highly similar when asked to evaluate another model's chain-of-thought reasoning by themselves. Finally, we develop an LLM-behavioral-game-theoretic model that captures some of their reasoning rationale, and show that it can support cooperative outcomes in equilibrium under sufficiently high similarity scores.

Feedback processes strongly influence student learning, yet their educational value depends on addressing two distinct challenges: providing high-quality, timely, and individualised feedback at scale, and supporting students to interpret, evaluate, and act on that feedback productively. Generative AI offers a credible means of addressing the provision challenge, but students' uptake of AI-generated feedback remains limited. We conducted a large-scale quasi-experimental sequential cohort study comparing three AI-mediated feedback workflows across 13,037 students and 51,296 student-authored resources. In Directed Feedback (n = 3,723), students received AI-generated feedback comments without structured support. In Self-Directed Feedback (n = 3,951), students could initiate optional AI-supported dialogue. In Enacted Feedback (n = 5,363), students were prompted to select feedback suggestions, evaluate their relevance, and engage in targeted AI-supported dialogue anchored to those selections. Enacted Feedback was associated with significantly higher uptake of AI-generated feedback, with an estimated probability of 26.2%, compared with 14.1% for Directed Feedback and 0.1% for Self-Directed Feedback. It was also associated with significantly higher self-assessment confidence and submitted-work quality than both comparison conditions. These findings suggest that the educational value of AI-generated feedback depends not only on the quality of feedback comments, but also on workflows that actively structure students' enactment of feedback literacy processes. The results have implications for the design of AI feedback systems that position learners as active participants in judgement, dialogue, and improvement rather than passive recipients of comments. Overall findings show that AI access alone is insufficient; purposeful workflow design is central to productive feedback use.

The convergence of artificial intelligence (AI), Industrial Internet of Things, cyber-physical systems, and advanced robotics is reshaping manufacturing faster than engineering curricula can adapt, widening the gap between the competencies required on the shop floor and those delivered by traditional engineering and technology education. This paper proposes a Workforce Readiness Level (WRL) framework, which adapts the Technology Readiness Level scale into nine progressive competency stages and a four-pillar rubric, digital and AI literacy, cyber-physical systems fluency, human-machine collaboration, and data-driven decision making, aggregated through a composite stage score and a cohort-level workforce-readiness index under a ``no-thin-pillar'' rule. The framework is instantiated at a university smart-manufacturing teaching laboratory and draws on 89 sponsored capstone projects delivered over four semesters, four of which are analyzed in depth. Four pillars jointly span the relevant ABET student outcomes. Across the highlighted cohorts the workforce-readiness index ranged from 5.2 to 6.4, and the no-thin-pillar rule was diagnostically informative in three of the four cases and the binding certification constraint in one, repeatedly surfacing cyber-physical and data-driven-decision gaps concealed behind strong analytics profiles; advancement to the highest stages was gated by industry-embedded experience rather than additional coursework. WRL offers educators, accreditation bodies, and regional workforce systems a common, evidence-based instrument for diagnosing and advancing workforce readiness; future work will calibrate pillar weights and test reliability and predictive validity.

Artificial intelligence is changing the task composition of computing work faster than curricula and training typically adapt. This is a curriculum-framework paper, grounded in a structured narrative review of labor-market and software-engineering evidence and illustrated through an exploratory pilot course: the review supports the framework, and the pilot illustrates it rather than serving as primary evidence. The central claim is that near-term change is task reallocation rather than full replacement: routine implementation is increasingly automated while verification, systems thinking, security, and the ability to supervise and orchestrate AI (keeping a human in the loop) gain value. We organize the response as a capability-assurance framework anchored by a Capability Ladder: a five-level progression (trigger, automation, workflow, AI agent, agent team) that classifies the operational autonomy of AI-augmented work and the human supervision it requires. We map the ladder to course-level updates, workload-aware assessment, and stackable workforce credentials, and illustrate it through a two-semester pilot of a team-based, no-code course enrolling computing and business students. We argue for targeted modernization around durable capabilities rather than wholesale curriculum replacement, and we are explicit about evidence limits: labor signals are confounded by non-AI forces, industry reports are directional, and the pilot is exploratory.

Generative AI is transforming legal translation by introducing opportunities alongside linguistic, technical, legal, ethical and cognitive risks. This chapter examines the implications of AI for professional legal translation and proposes an AI literacy framework tailored to the profession. It argues that AI does not change the fundamental objectives of legal translation but requires an extension of professional competence through AI literacy. The proposed framework comprises four mutually reinforcing dimensions, foundational, procedural, critical and strategic, and conceptualises AI literacy as a transversal component of legal translation competence that fosters digital resilience. It further discusses the pedagogical implications of this framework by proposing classroom activities designed to develop AI literacy in legal translator education, enabling future translators to integrate AI critically, responsibly and in accordance with professional standards.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has entered classrooms faster than teachers have been prepared to use it well, producing a GenAI literacy lag in which technological diffusion outpaces educators' conceptual, pedagogical, and ethical readiness. Established AI literacy frameworks predate the widespread adoption of large language models and, while acknowledging ethics, position it as a discrete competency rather than a constitutive commitment, with equity and agency as supplementary design principles. Recent GenAI-specific efforts address isolated features but remain fragmented. We introduce the Responsible AI Literacy in Education (RAIL-Ed) framework, developed through a systematic review and qualitative framework analysis of 67 studies (2023-2025), grounded in critical, pragmatist, sociocultural, and human-centered traditions (Freire, Dewey, Vygotsky, Shneiderman). RAIL-Ed specifies six interdependent pillars: Technical Fluency, Critical Evaluation, Human-AI Collaboration, Contextual Awareness, Ethical Reasoning, and Empowered Agency, marked by three commitments. It is integrative: the absence of any pillar produces a characteristic pedagogical failure. It is developmental: a three-level rubric (Emerging, Competent, Advanced) specifies how each pillar matures across the K-12 teacher-preparation continuum. It is dialectical: the same generative affordance can deepen or displace learning depending on the literacy a teacher brings to it, making the cultivation of that literacy, not the adoption of the tool, the object of design. By treating ethics, equity, and agency as constitutive, RAIL-Ed offers a theoretically grounded basis for curriculum design, teacher education, and policy, aligned with the UNESCO AI Competency Framework for Teachers and the OECD/European Commission AILit Framework. The framework is conceptual, advancing falsifiable propositions for empirical validation.

The rapid growth of large language models (LLMs) has resurrected age-old questions in sociolinguistics and world Englishes, such as who decides what counts as legitimate English, whose English is suspect etc. This paper examines how AI systems, their uses and discourse on them reflect, reinforce, and occasionally challenge (standard) language ideologies, which privilege Inner Circle norms and marginalize non-dominant Englishes. Drawing on evidence from empirical studies, media commentary, social media debates, and examples from AI outputs, the paper shows that AI technologies reproduce dominant language ideologies at different levels: training data, design protocols, evaluation benchmarks, user feedback and public commentary. The analysis uses the public controversy over AI-sounding language, especially the fixation on the word delve, to illustrate how speakers of English from the Global North police the English language norms of Global South English users. The paper also identifies what Christian Mair has called a "standardisation paradox": AI may homogenize English by privileging standard forms and at the same time pluralize Englishes through exposure to wide-ranging corpora and annotation work carried out by Global South users. In doing so, the paper argues that generative AI is reigniting long-standing debates in World Englishes about standardization, legitimacy, and the ownership of English, now playing out in algorithmic systems, model training, evaluation practices, and public discourse, where non-dominant Englishes are increasingly conflated with AI-generated speech. Discussing AI systems as a site where language ideologies are (re)produced, the paper argues for more inclusive design approaches that recognize the plurality of Englishes in order to address the real-world negative consequences of treating some as more legitimate than others.

The rise of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in academic writing and publishing (AWP) raises questions about linguistic inclusivity and the legitimacy of diverse Englishes in global scholarly communication. This article responds to these questions through a structured scholarly dialogue involving five sociolinguists from World Englishes and adjacent fields. Organised around five guiding questions, the dialogue interrogates how GenAI tools influence writing practices, reinforce or disrupt dominant language norms, and raise ethical challenges. Contributors reflect on the potential of GenAI to democratise writing processes while also raising concerns about GenAI's tendency to marginalise minoritised varieties and flatten nuance in scholarly writing. Across the dialogue, themes of linguistic (in)justice, researcher agency, and institutional responsibility emerge, with contributors calling for equity-informed policies, critical AI literacy, and inclusive co-design in GenAI development. The article shows the value of dialogic reflection in understanding GenAI's role in AWP. It concludes that while GenAI may reinforce existing hierarchies, it can also serve as a site of resistance, depending on how it is designed, governed and used within scholarly communities committed to linguistic diversity.

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.

AI chatbots can be "sycophantic," or overly agreeable and flattering toward users. Sycophantic AI has been shown to entrench attitudes, yet users frequently fail to recognize it (a phenomenon we call "sycophancy blindness"). We tested whether increasing users' awareness of sycophancy protects them from its harmful effects in two preregistered experiments (n = 1,590). In the first, participants received a brief written warning about sycophancy before conversing with a sycophantic chatbot. In the second, participants watched a video of a sycophantic AI validating several other users, including users on opposite sides of the same conflict, before interacting with it themselves. Both interventions changed how participants evaluated the AI. The warning reduced the AI's perceived objectivity, and the video reduced enjoyment of the AI --- an effect mediated by the reduced belief that its validation was uniquely earned. We then pooled our experiments with two prior studies of sycophancy awareness interventions (six interventions total, n = 3,982). The pattern across experiments was consistent: while the interventions made the sycophantic AI appear less objective and trustworthy, none reduced its persuasiveness. These results suggest that individual-level interventions, such as warning labels or AI literacy, may not be enough to protect users from AI harms.

The rapid adoption of generative AI tools has created new literacy demands for designers who must verbalize tacit knowledge through natural language prompts. Yet the micro-level cognitive processes by which designers externalize implicit intentions during iterative AI dialogue remain underexplored. This exploratory qualitative study examined five expert designers (11-20 years UI/UX experience, M = 15.4 years) using think-aloud protocols. We identified "Strategic Oscillation" -- experts' intentional return to vague language (Vibe) after progressing toward operational specifications (Code), leveraging AI's probabilistic nature for creative exploration. We observed shifts from "instruction" to "consultation" mode, deep reflection triggered by semantic collisions, and one participant's disengagement revealing conceptual alignment as a tentative boundary condition. We propose the ECRT cycle (Expectation-Collision-Reflection-Transformation) operationalizing the SECI model's "externalization" phase for human-AI collaboration. These findings yield three design patterns for metacognitive support and position AI as a "probabilistic mirror" catalyzing tacit knowledge externalization.

Generative AI is reshaping programming education, yet educators often infer students' AI-supported learning from classroom observations alone. This experience report presents a trio-ethnography involving two computing educators with different teaching philosophies and one undergraduate computer science student to examine how these interpretations evolve through dialogue. Across three conversations, the educators reflected on students' AI use, discussed changes to programming pedagogy, and revisited their assumptions after engaging with the student's lived experiences. Rather than simply confirming or contradicting the educators' perspectives, the student's narratives revealed learning processes that were largely invisible in the classroom, prompting both educators to reconsider assumptions about AI use, assessment, transparency, and programming instruction. We argue that trio-ethnography offers a valuable reflective approach for helping computing educators move beyond observable student behaviors toward a richer understanding of AI-supported learning and for informing instructional adaptation in the era of generative AI.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become part of scientific inquiry. Scientists use AI to observe and measure phenomena, to identify patterns in data, and to build models. As AI moves into scientific inquiry, it gains relevance for science education: students should learn how AI is changing scientific practices, ideally by engaging in AI-integrated scientific inquiry themselves. How to design such instruction, grounded in authentic scientific practice rather than taught as a standalone topic, remains an open question. In our vision, which we describe in this article, AI is treated as a set of scientific instruments that students use within the scientific practices described by the Next Generation Science Standards. Each instrument is a genuine scientific tool, pedagogically bounded: its controls are simplified while its core scientific function is preserved. The approach has two aims: engaging students in authentic scientific inquiry, and building an understanding of how AI is used in science and where it can mislead (discipline-based AI literacy, DAIL). In the article, we focus on the investigative core of inquiry, namely observing, analyzing, and modeling, and describe one exemplary AI instrument for each: computer vision for observing, clustering for analyzing, and generative modeling for modeling. We argue that every AI instrument in science education should carry a distinct reflection point that prompts critical evaluation of the AI instrument itself. Finally, we describe how agentic AI, operating across the whole inquiry rather than a single practice, could be represented, arguing that students should first build a foundational understanding of scientific inquiry and AI instruments before relying on agentic AI.

The broad adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI), especially Generative AI, raises pressing questions about how users interact with these systems to produce new content. In this paper, we introduce the concept of authorship calibration, defined as users awareness of their actual authorship when interacting with AI. Using the CoAuthor dataset, we empirically examine how authorship calibration varies across users and how it relates to their frequency of AI use. Our results reveal high variability: users relying heavily on AI tend to misjudge their authorship, whereas those using AI less frequently exhibit more accurate authorship calibration. These findings suggest that AI can obscure users perception of their own authorship. In learning contexts, miscalibration can affect metacognitive monitoring and learning strategies, ultimately impacting learning outcomes. Fostering authorship calibration then appears essential for promoting responsible and educationally meaningful AI integration.

As generative AI (GenAI) becomes increasingly embedded in undergraduate academic writing, how students rely on these tools, rather than simply whether they use them, has become a central question for learning, academic integrity, and educational equity. Existing measures of reliance were developed inductively, focused on discrete problem-solving tasks, and validated mainly with homogeneous samples. This study developed and validated the GenAI Reliance Types Scale (GenAI-RTS), a 20-item instrument measuring four theoretically derived types of GenAI reliance: Strategic, Instrumental, Dependent, and Dialogic. Validation followed the multisource framework of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, drawing on a survey of 382 undergraduates at a U.S. Minority-Serving Institution and interviews with 14 purposively sampled students. Confirmatory factor analyses of six competing models supported a five-factor structure in which Strategic Reliance comprises two facets, Deliberate Use and Critical Evaluation, alongside Instrumental, Dependent, and Dialogic factors (CFI = .92, RMSEA = .08; DWLS CFI = .98, RMSEA = .07). Subscale reliability was acceptable to good (omega = .75-.88), and scalar measurement invariance held across gender, first-generation status, and STEM/non-STEM majors, to our knowledge the first such evidence for a GenAI reliance instrument. Rasch analysis indicated that a five-point response format would improve category functioning. Strategic reliance was positively associated with AI literacy, and the reliance types differentiated students across multiple writing process and outcome variables. The GenAI-RTS offers researchers and educators a theoretically grounded, psychometrically validated instrument for identifying undergraduate reliance profiles and supporting research, assessment, and AI literacy intervention.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly reshaping workplace communication, yet whether AI-assisted writing changes how recipients actually behave, and through what channel, remains unknown. Here, in a randomized crossover field experiment, 121 employees across six companies sent work emails under three conditions over three weeks: unaided writing, GPT-5 rewriting in a playful tone, and GPT-5 rewriting in a professional tone. Across 16,880 emails, playful editing increased emotional positivity (B=+0.068, p<0.001), and professional editing decreased it (B=-0.041, p<0.001), yet neither condition directly altered open rates, reply rates, or response times. Instead, within-sender positivity strongly predicted both opening (OR=2.05) and replying (OR=3.32, p<0.001), a significant indirect pathway through which AI editing shaped behavior, in the absence of any direct effect. These findings suggest that AI-assisted communication shapes workplace engagement not through its use, but through the emotional tone of the language it produces.

The promise of AI literacy ``for all'' confronts a structural challenge embedded in how nations organise secondary computer science education. In most systems, a general-track subject -- Digital Literacy, ICT, TIC, or SNT -- bears the weight of universal AI literacy, while a specialist Informatics course serves STEM pathways separately. Yet the content and depth of the general track are shaped by governance decisions made largely with reference to the specialist one. This paper presents a comparative analysis of curricula and examination frameworks across fifteen countries, identifying two structural challenges. First, in several systems a significant portion of students completes secondary education without any formal programming exposure. Second, among those who do receive CS education, a \emph{Syntax Ceiling} emerges: Python-based instruction reaches most students, while the algorithmic depth associated with C++ remains concentrated in elite STEM tracks. Drawing on reform cases spanning centralised mandates (France, China, Japan), assessment-driven systems (Poland, Romania, South Korea), and recent universal reforms (Switzerland, Kazakhstan), we show that governance structures and high-stakes examinations are the primary drivers of both challenges -- and that specialist and general-track language choices are rarely independent, linked through shared teacher pipelines that curriculum policy seldom acknowledges. Achieving genuine AI literacy for all requires confronting not just curriculum content, but the access architectures and resource constraints that determine who receives it -- and at what depth.

LLMs stage a new form of cultural encounter that is massive, automated, and monolingual. Literary disciplines have always negotiated cultural struggles with comparative reading of literature, narratological and poetic analysis, critical theory, world literature, and translation. These tools have now become indispensable for building culturally literate AI. The essay develops a layered framework toward more nuanced textual models and pluralistic interpretations of AI, emphasizing the natural intersections of literature and AI development, connecting current debates in critical theory with structural monolingualism, and suggesting a new application of world literature approaches to address global AI textuality through macrostructure, circulation, and untranslatability.

In the age of AI, what will be good knowledge? This article, which is accepted and forthcoming in a special issue of Modern Fiction Studies on "Cultural AI" in 2027, applies digital humanities methods to map epistemic virtues (like "true," "accurate," "creative") used in a corpus of 553 journal articles on AI published in 2024. "Creativity" comes in for special attention as an example. Exploring this discourse of value, the article considers how a framework might be developed for evaluating the knowledge-worth of AI -- one less locked into values formed around pre-AI "knowledge work" agents or structures, and more open to the future values of "generativity." The essay is supported by an online digital kit for exploring data models of the corpus of articles on AI it studies.

Epistemic thinking plays a central role in students' learning processes when applying generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), particularly in programming contexts where learners must construct queries, evaluate and validate AI-generated outputs, and regulate problem-solving strategies. This study introduces the conceptual framework of Epistemic AI Literacy (EAIL), reframing AI literacy as a process-oriented epistemic phenomenon that emerges through dynamic human-AI interactions across different domains. Drawing on the AIR (epistemic aims, ideals and reliable epistemic processes) framework, this study examines how epistemic aims and epistemic processes are enacted in GenAI-supported co-programming activities and explores scalable approaches for operationalizing these constructs in interaction data. Using a large dialogue dataset of human-AI co-programming, this study identifies observable dimensions of epistemic aims (i.e., mastery-oriented aims) and epistemic processes (i.e., outsourcing, explanation seeking, verification seeking, prompt monitoring, and epistemic justification). The results reveal a prevalent lack of EAIL, with 78.8% of student-GenAI interactions relying on non-mastery-oriented aims and less reliable epistemic strategies like outsourcing and verification-seeking. Conversely, only 11.1% of interactions showed high epistemic engagement, where mastery-oriented aims were coupled with advanced epistemic strategies like epistemic justification in a more reliable epistemic process.

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.

Although most undergraduates now use large language models (LLMs), a form of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) for academic writing, no validated method distinguishes the qualitatively different ways students rely on them. Existing instruments assess reliance solely by frequency of use, a measure that, as this study shows, inadvertently rewards dependence on AI rather than recognizing students' own intellectual contribution. Conducted at a public minority-serving university and grounded in the AI Literacy Framework, Expectancy-Value Theory, and Biggs's Presage-Process-Product model, the study drew on 382 undergraduates, 14 interviews, and 396 open-ended survey responses. Four distinct reliance types were identified and confirmed: Strategic (34.3%), Instrumental (30.9%), Dialogic (30.4%), and Dependent (4.5%). Students' value and cost beliefs predicted the intensity of their reliance on LLMs, whereas their AI literacy predicted the type of reliance they adopted, indicating that differentiated support is needed. Notably, Strategic users, those who engaged AI most deliberately, scored lowest on standard outcome measures. This pattern reflects a limitation of current instruments, which index AI's contribution rather than writing quality, thereby penalizing students who show the greatest independent thinking. Analysis also revealed an additional group, roughly 13%, who declined to use AI for ethical rather than practical reasons, and who existing frameworks overlook. These findings carry implications for AI literacy programs, the measurement of student learning outcomes, and equitable AI policy at minority-serving institutions.

Across social and online platforms, people are increasingly exposed to AI-generated images. As a consequence, the task of distinguishing AI-generated from authentic images is becoming a central challenge for information ecosystems. While humans perform better than chance, accuracy falls short of many operational needs. Initial evidence shows that visually oriented training can improve deepfake detection but does not improve participants' ability to identify real images as real. Here, we investigate the efficacy of a brief training intervention for intelligence analysts employed by the United States government in 2024. We conducted a counterbalanced within-subject randomized experiment in which we showed participants real and AI-generated images varying in pose complexity and scene context and asked them whether each image was real or AI-generated, both before and after an expert delivered a 30-minute training that pointed out patterns in seven real and 50 AI-generated images. We collected 2,544 image-level judgments from 32 intelligence analysts. We find training increased overall accuracy by 9 percentage points (95% CI: [2.7, 15.4]) from a baseline of 72%. We find the improvement is driven by a 14.2 percentage point increase in accuracy for real images (95% CI: [0.7, 27.7]). Through a careful experimental setup that curated matched pairs of real and AI-generated images across pose complexity categories, we reveal how these trainings influence people with different levels of digital forensics and generative AI experience and identify the kind of image-based content where this training intervention appears to be most effective. Ultimately, these results provide causal evidence that a brief, structured training can improve human judgment across a diverse array of real and AI-generated images, informing organizational responses to AI-generated visual misinformation.

Generative artificial intelligence(GenAI) is reshaping learning in higher education, with particularly pronounced implications for the humanities and social sciences(HSS), where learning outcomes are commonly expressed through written and interpretive forms that align closely with GenAI's capabilities. Yet, systematic evidence on the educational impacts of GenAI on HSS students remains limited. Addressing this gap, this study draws on a large-scale survey of HSS students in China to examine its role in academic development. Guided by relevant learning theories, this study focuses on four dimensions: patterns of use, effects on learning processes and academic performance, challenges associated with GenAI use, and preferred approaches to curricular integration. We found that more than half perceived enhanced learning motivation, independent thinking and creativity, although a substantial minority reported little change or even decline. Comparatively, a notably larger majority reported academic performance gains, although these gains may partly reflect limitations in conventional assessment practices. The study identifies variations in perceived learning and performance improvements among students with differing durations of GenAI experience, along with observable disciplinary differences and modest gender differences. While an overwhelming majority valued the importance of ethical considerations, only slightly more than half were satisfied with privacy protection. Limited accuracy and overreliance emerged as the most pressing concerns reported by students. Students favored partial or optional curricular integration supported by practice-oriented training, and widely recognized GenAI's significance for their future professional development. Grounded in student perspectives, this study offers evidence-based recommendations for the responsible and pedagogically meaningful integration of GenAI

Adaptive AI ethics instruction in graduate research training benefits from intake measures that reflect differences in prior LLM experience. Prior coursework or workshop attendance is an obvious candidate, but it is not clear whether it is associated with pre-instruction ratings on key AI perception items. We compare three candidate intake features, self-reported usage frequency, self-rated LLM familiarity, and prior AI education, across five baseline perception outcomes in 93 bioscience graduate and postdoctoral trainees enrolled in a required research ethics course. Usage frequency shows Holm-corrected associations with all five outcomes, self-rated familiarity with three, and prior AI education with none. A threshold-like pattern at the lower end of the scale is most visible for training interest and accuracy trust rather than appearing as a uniform gradient across all five outcomes. In a short intake survey, reported LLM use is more consistently associated with these perceptions than prior coursework or workshops, with self-rated familiarity serving as a secondary indicator. These results suggest that simple pre-instruction behavioral signals can inform lightweight intake profiling for adaptive AI ethics education.

Based on a questionnaire of 100 higher-education students, predominantly from engineering-related fields, and a critical review of recent literature, this chapter examines how students use and perceive Large Language Models (LLMs) in engineering education. Students primarily value LLMs for writing support, conceptual clarification, coding assistance, and brainstorming, while simultaneously expressing concerns about inaccuracies, bias, overreliance, academic integrity, and the burden of verification. Through an analysis of two dominant metaphors, namely LLMs as an "oracle" and as a "tutor," the chapter shows how these systems cultivate expectations of authority, expertise, and personalized learning that often exceed their actual capabilities. The chapter further argues that students' attachment to the promises of efficiency and personalized support reflects a form of "cruel optimism," where the perceived benefits of LLMs often depend on the very skills, vigilance, and expertise that students are still developing. Overall, the chapter argues for a purpose-driven and context-sensitive approach to AI integration in engineering education, emphasizing critical AI literacy, reflective assessment design, pedagogical caution, and consideration of broader ethical and environmental impacts.

Gender bias in LLMs has been studied extensively in model outputs, with biased prompts shown to amplify stereotyped generations. Whether such bias propagates into text produced by humans who use these systems, however, remains underexplored. We investigate whether gender bias in an LLM writing assistant transfers into career plan essays written by students. We first verify that a gender-biased prompt induces gender-differentiated language in LLM-generated essays, while a neutral prompt does not. We then recruited participants (N = 123) in a controlled environment to write career plan essays for paired biographical profiles differing only in gender under three conditions: no AI assistance, neutral LLM assistance, or gender-biased LLM assistance. Students in the biased condition produced essays with a significantly larger agentic gap and more gender-stereotypic occupation suggestions than those in the control and neutral conditions. Our results also reveal that this bias transfer is asymmetric: agency is suppressed in female-target essays while male-target writing remains largely unaffected. Our findings highlight the risk of bias propagation in AI-assisted writing, calling for fairness-aware design in educational AI tools.

Recent evidence reported by Tully, Longoni, and Appel (2025) suggests that lower artificial intelligence (AI) literacy predicts greater receptivity toward AI. We revisit this claim using the public data from Study 3 of that article, which measures past usage of five AI tool categories on a five-point frequency scale. We first reproduce the negative association between AI literacy and aggregate AI usage using OLS on participant-level averages, binary logit, ordered logit, and multinomial logit specifications. We then show that the aggregate relationship masks substantial heterogeneity by tool type. In our demographic-adjusted primary specification, AI literacy does not significantly predict text AI usage (ordered-logit $β$ = -0.090, p = .387), whereas it remains a strong predictor of non-text AI adoption ($β$ = -0.377, p < .001). The non-text effect is also robust under Tully et al.'s original Study 3 control specification ($β$ = -0.502, p < .001). Binary, ordered-logit, and multinomial specifications suggest that the non-text relationship is primarily an adoption/non-adoption pattern rather than evidence of intensive use: the demographic-adjusted odds ratio of ever having used a non-text AI tool is 0.68. Thus, in the study that measures self-reported past usage rather than stated preferences, the evidence does not support a simple claim that lower AI literacy predicts greater receptivity to AI in general. It points instead to a narrower pattern of broader adoption across lower-penetration, non-text AI tools.

Contextualized assessment offers high ecological validity for evaluating creativity but introduces a critical challenge: observed performance may be confounded with cognitive proficiency (domain knowledge) and agency (willingness to engage). Meanwhile, in the age of generative AI, creative problem solving increasingly occurs in tool-mediated and human--AI interactive environments, making fully static assessment less aligned with contemporary creative practice. To address these issues, this paper proposes IntElicit, a framework for eliciting and assessing contextualized creativity via dialogue policy optimization. IntElicit functions as a constrained adaptive AI Interviewer: it provides non-directive knowledge and agency scaffolds in multi-turn interaction to reduce non-creative confounders, while preserving participants' responsibility for generating the creative content being evaluated. Specifically, to tackle sparse rewards and potential reward hacking (e.g., answer dictation) in open-ended educational dialogue, IntElicit introduces a decomposed process reward mechanism. This mechanism aligns the policy with pedagogical elicitation, rewarding prompts that draw out participant reasoning rather than producing optimal answers on their behalf. Extensive experiments, including participant simulation and a human subject study (N=64), show that IntElicit improves elicited creative outcomes over expert-designed baselines. Together, the results suggest that interactive elicitation can reveal creative potential that static FPSP-style assessment may miss, providing a formative and diagnostic lens for contextualized creativity assessment in AI-mediated learning contexts.

Higher education institutions are increasingly expected to ensure that both students and staff develop Generative AI (GenAI) literacies. In response, they are introducing professional development programs and embedding GenAI skills within student curricula. However, current educational frameworks typically assume a linear progression of GenAI literacy, implying that foundational technical understanding must precede creative application. This paper challenges such an assumption through a psychometric analysis of a taxonomy-based self-assessment instrument (n = 158). We applied Rasch measurement theory and Guttman ordering to map the latent perceived order of difficulty of GenAI skills across students, academics, and professional staff. Results reveal a fundamental divergence in perceived competence profiles: while academics follow a more traditional linear path, students exhibit an "inverted" profile, frequently mastering high-level creation tasks before acquiring foundational conceptual understanding. Furthermore, the correlation of skill difficulty between students and academics was weak (r = 0.188). We argue that this "skill bypass" creates a fragile sense of fluency, where high self-efficacy in prompting masks low literacy in AI mechanics. These findings challenge the "one-size-fits-all" curricula and provide the empirical basis for diagnostic-driven, modular interventions that foster genuine human-AI synergy.

Learner agency and autonomy are foundational to personal development, yet a pervasive "jingle-jangle" fallacy (i.e. identical terms denoting different constructs, distinct terms denoting identical ones) has substantially hindered cumulative knowledge. Treating meaning as a phenomenon constituted through use in linguistic practice, we extracted 8,954 definitions and 2,700 scale items from over 14,000 publications, to investigate how researchers actually used learner agency and autonomy with a semantic analysis pipeline. The definitional landscape of two constructs resolves into three dimensions: regulation and control of learning (task), intrinsic motivation and internal decision-making (person), and social-relational action (sociocultural), thereby empirically quantifying the jingle-jangle fallacy. Existing scales, however, systematically underrepresent the sociocultural dimension. Critically, current generative AI research in education concentrates on learning regulation and control, narrowing the behavioral repertoire that AI-mediated learning environments are designed to cultivate. Beyond conceptual clarification, this work carries direct implications for conceptualization, measurement, and practice towards supporting the multidimensional learner agency and autonomy.

Large language models generate code from natural language prompts, enabling "vibe coding," which allows non-programmers to develop computational solutions. Vibe coding for teachers amplifies the value of teachers-as-designers, improving technology integration while fostering AI literacy. However, structured guidance on supporting this process is lacking. We propose GAIDE (A Guiding Framework for AI-Integrated Design for Educators), a framework that supports K-12 teachers in creating AI-powered learning technologies through vibe coding. The initial framework, built on Design Thinking and INTERACT, was validated through a CORDTRA interaction analysis of three teachers and four faculty mentors in an eight-week workshop to derive the final framework. Additionally, the qualitative analysis of pre- and post-interviews found an enhancement of teachers' AI literacy. Findings highlight the potential of learning-by-creating for professional development.

This paper aims to synthesize empirical research on AI tools used to support English as a second/foreign language (EL2) learners in Arab University classrooms (AUCs) between Jan 1st 2023 and Aug 31st 2025. We utilized 3 large datasets, namely Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus as the data sources. Using PRISMA-guided searches across these well-known databases, we included only published articles. The search process results in 184 studies, but only 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Findings unveil that EL2 learners have positive attitudes towards AI for drafting, revision, and practice. Empirical gains were most consistent for surface-level outcomes improvements in higher-order writing quality and speaking proficiency was mixed and often contingent on teacher mediation. The paper concludes by proposing a research agenda and practical guidelines for Arab universities seeking evidence-based AI integration in EL2 instruction. It also recommends scaffolded integration, teacher training, reflective tasks to reduce over-reliance on AI tools.

Research on artificial intelligence in education (AIED) is rapidly expanding, yet technical progress often lacks human-centered grounding and adequate attention to cultural context. Community-Based Learning, a pedagogy rooted in social work, remains underrepresented in AIED research, particularly within Asia-Pacific contexts. This paper reports on cross-boundary Community-Based Learning where undergraduate students develop AI-enabled solutions for cultural heritage preservation and sustainable development. We examine how community-engaged computing operationalizes human-centered AIED across three dimensions: education, technology, and culture. We contribute a collaborative framework for culturally-aware AIED that fosters multi-stakeholder collaboration while widening participation by dissolving disciplinary silos between social work and computational science.

Introductory programming (CS1) courses often struggle to support students' understanding of program execution. While visualizations can make execution processes explicit, their effectiveness depends on design and context, and empirical evidence for AI-generated visualizations remains limited. We propose Generated Animated Traces (GATs), AI-generated, analogy-based, narrated animations that coordinate source code, execution state, and conceptual analogies. We conduct a study at two institutions in CS1 courses (Python, N=961; Java N=151) comparing GATs to textual explanations. We measure immediate learning performance and experience, end-of-course engagement and exam performance. Results show that GATs can yield selective benefits for immediate learning, but benefits are context-dependent and short-term. We observe that GATs' influence on performance is moderated by learner engagement profiles. This finding underscores the importance of personalized approaches.

Public discourse on AI has become polarized; exaggerated positions on AI in traditional and social media threaten the development of AI Literacy among the general public. In this article, I introduce the VET Framework, a method for categorizing AI discourse along the dimensions of valence, effectiveness, and trajectory. I show how this framework can be used to identify, compare, and critique prevalent narratives of AI Hype, AI Doom, AI Denial, and AI Normalcy. Using VET, I analyze how each of these four stances exaggerates some aspects of the current state and/or likely evolution of AI, and illustrate how the VET framework can serve as an AI Literacy tool by supporting the ``vetting'' of polarized AI discourse.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents personalize their responses by tailoring explanations to users' backgrounds, interests, and prior interactions, referred to as contextualization. Personalization has been identified as a persuasive strategy in politics or in marketing. However, the persuasive effect of contextualization in everyday tasks, where users often lack prior knowledge, remains unclear. We conducted a $2\times2$ between-subjects experiment ($N = 380$) examining how contextualization, combined with conversational warmth, shapes reliance and persuasiveness of an AI assistant arguing against expert recommendations. Our findings reveal that contextualization reduces the persuasive power of AI, but its combination with warmth restores persuasiveness through a crossover interaction. Reliance on AI is present across conditions and is invariant to the conversational design. Trust strongly predicts both persuasion and reliance, yet neither contextualization nor warmth operates through trust. AI literacy decouples trust from behavior: more literate users report lower trust in the assistant, yet are more persuaded and more reliant on its advice. These results suggest that users are prone to deferring to AI agents over human expert judgment; however, interface-level conversational design choices have a limited role in shaping the behavior.

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.

This study reports findings from a cross-sectional survey (n = 72) of higher education practitioners examining beliefs, behaviors, and institutional conditions related to artificial intelligence (AI) integration in teaching and learning. Grounded in the DOT Framework, which integrates design thinking and open systems theory, the study investigates AI familiarity, usage patterns, design-oriented practices, and pedagogical beliefs. Exploratory factor analysis of 19 belief items identified a three-factor structure: AI Functional Capabilities, Oversight and Governance, and Instructor Collaboration and Planning (α = .90). Results indicate that practitioners hold favorable views of AI as a pedagogical support while maintaining strong commitments to human oversight and critical evaluation. Reported practices emphasize iterative prompting and content generation, with less consistent use of needs assessment and feedback loops. Institutional barriers including limited policy, training, and infrastructure were widely reported. These findings provide preliminary empirical support for the DOT Framework as a descriptive model of practitioner beliefs and practices, while also highlighting gaps between design-oriented theory and current implementation. The study contributes an initial measurement structure and identifies directions for confirmatory validation and outcome-based research linking AI-supported design practices to instructional quality.

Generative artificial intelligence redefines higher education by restructuring the processes through which scientific knowledge is produced and validated. These systems are not neutral; they actively contribute to the marginalization of non-hegemonic epistemologies. This research draws upon educational sciences, critical technology studies, and disability studies to demonstrate that training datasets, which remain predominantly Anglophone and Western-centric, reinforce epistemic coloniality. The situation of persons with disabilities provides a particularly clear illustration of this phenomenon. Technological architectures frequently confine these individuals to reductive stereotypes or exclude them from the design process, leading to a double marginalization. This article examines whether a hybridization between the researcher and the machine might preserve epistemic plurality, while acknowledging the structural limitations inherent in algorithmic correction when used as a purely palliative strategy.

AI sycophancy has become a prominent concern in large language model (LLM) research. Yet the term lacks a consistent definition and has been applied to behaviors ranging from agreeing with a user's false claim to excessively praising the user to withholding corrective feedback. When researchers, companies, and policymakers use the same term to describe different behaviors, evaluation results become difficult to compare, mitigation strategies fail to transfer, and systems that are resistant to one form of sycophancy continue exhibiting other forms. To address this, we make two contributions. First, we reviewed 70 papers on AI sycophancy to develop a taxonomy of how the behavior has been defined and measured. The taxonomy distinguishes (1) whether a model is sycophantic toward a user's positions and beliefs, or toward the user's broader personal traits and emotions, and (2) whether this occurs through explicit, direct language or more implicit, subtle behaviors such as framing, omission, or tone. Mapping existing literature to our taxonomy reveals that current research has focused on overt forms of sycophancy toward users' beliefs, leaving more subtle and person-directed behaviors relatively understudied. Second, we surveyed 106 experts in AI sycophancy and related fields to examine whether researchers agree on which model behaviors are sycophantic. While experts are nearly unanimous in believing that sycophancy is a significant problem in current AI systems (94.3% agree), they disagree substantially on which specific behaviors qualify. Together, these findings demonstrate that AI sycophancy is a broad family of behaviors with different measurement challenges, intervention requirements, and governance implications. Our taxonomy provides a shared vocabulary for understanding and addressing these behaviors.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is being increasingly integrated into human problem-solving, yet its effects on individual skill development remain unclear. We examine how both AI usage and informativeness can shape learning in the context of a controlled logical reasoning task with on-demand access to AI assistance. We find that greater AI usage is associated with weaker skill development: heavy AI users underperform relative to comparable peers, whereas light AI users perform similarly to matched users who do not use AI. We also find in our study that these patterns are mediated by AI informativeness. Low-information AI neither improves immediate performance nor preserves performance after AI assistance is removed, and is linked to weaker learning overall. On the other hand, high-information AI was found to improve short-run performance without reducing post-AI outcomes on average in our experiments, but with heterogeneous effects. Our findings in general suggest that AI can, depending on context, either complement human skill development by amplifying independent reasoning or can act as a substitute that undermines such reasoning, with the implication that regulating AI access and usage will be important for promoting skill development in the presence of AI assistance.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) literacy initiatives expand in K-12 settings, understanding how gender shapes student baseline perceptions, tool-use, and responsiveness to interventions is essential for equitable curriculum design. This study examines gender differences in AI literacy, safety awareness, and STEM career aspirations among Australian secondary students (Years 7, 8, and 10; N(pre) = 199, n(post) = 136) from two co-educational government schools who participated in a one-day AI literacy workshop. Using statistical regression methods controlling for year level and school, we found that pre-workshop, male students reported significantly higher STEM career interest across all three domains (AI, computer science, and engineering), while female students were significantly more likely to use AI for schoolwork and to seek advice from AI tools. Gender-differentiated patterns also emerged in deepfake behaviours: males were significantly more likely to have created or shared deepfake content. Both genders improved in AI knowledge post-intervention, yet females showed a richer profile of gains: wider conceptual understanding, greater confidence, and meaningful increases in AI and CS career interest that partially narrowed the gender STEM gap. These findings highlight the need for gender-responsive AI curricula, particularly deepfake safety education for male students, and demonstrate that even single-day workshops can narrow gender gaps in STEM aspirations and AI confidence.

The rapid adoption of Generative AI, including LLM-based chatbots like ChatGPT, has highlighted the need for accessible ways to support public understanding and AI literacy. To address this need, we introduce a game-based, interactive approach in the form of a jigsaw puzzle whose completed image is a comic-based infographic illustrating the workings, capabilities, limitations, and societal implications of these technologies. Each comic sketch also functions as a standalone informational card, providing focused explanations of specific facets of AI use, design, and impact. The visual content was created in a live collaborative session with a professional illustrator and a multidisciplinary group of experts and non experts, combining structured knowledge with informal, exploratory reflections shared during the discussion. By integrating hands-on assembly, visual storytelling, and collaborative interaction, the puzzle provides an engaging and playful tool for exploring the mechanisms, perks, and perils of AI systems in informal learning contexts.

The four dominant learning theories of behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and connectivism show significant conceptual limitations as generative artificial intelligence (AI) proliferates in educational settings. These frameworks were formulated before the emergence of AI systems capable of generating, synthesizing, and reasoning about knowledge. This article critically examines each learning theory and identifies assumptions challenged by the affordances of generative AI. Drawing on research in distributed cognition, extended mind, human-AI collaboration, AI literacy, cognitive offloading, and metacognition, the article proposes Generativism as a learning theory for the generative AI age. Generativism posits that learning increasingly occurs through the iterative co-construction of knowledge between human learners and AI systems. The proposed framework is organized around four constructs (epistemic partnership, distributed agency, generative literacy, and adaptive metacognition) and four principles specifying the relations among them. The framework offers a foundation for rethinking instructional design, learning, assessment, and expertise development in contexts where generative AI plays an integral role in cognition.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in educational settings as interactive tools for collaboration. However, their tendency toward sycophancy, aligning with user beliefs even when incorrect, raises concerns for learning and decision-making, especially for less knowledgeable users. This study investigates how sycophantic alignment emerges in authentic multi-turn human-AI interactions and whether interventions targeting increasing AI literacy and prompting competencies can mitigate its effects. In a controlled mixed-design experiment, 60 participants completed analytical survival ranking tasks by first generating individual rankings and then making final decisions after collaborating with an AI assistant, both before and after receiving either general or sycophancy-focused prompting training. Preliminary results show that LLMs are highly sensitive to user input: lower-quality initial responses lead to poorer AI advice, suggesting that the model mirrors or incorporates user reasoning rather than correcting it or offering better alternatives that are missing or less frequent in the conversation. Critically, the propagation of user errors into AI responses significantly reduced both the quality of AI feedback and final user task performance, revealing a form of contextual sycophantic dependence. While the intervention did not eliminate the propagation of contextual errors, it significantly improved AI advice by reducing the direct mirroring of incorrect user rankings. These findings suggest that prompting and AI literacy alone may be insufficient to ensure epistemically independent AI support, highlighting the need for system-level approaches that better promote critical engagement in human-AI collaboration.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is transforming how firms create, process, and apply knowledge, yet little is known about the heterogeneity of its productivity effects across users. We report results from a randomized controlled experiment in which participants-analogs of early-career knowledge workers-were assigned to self-study a technical domain using either traditional resources or large-language-model (LLM) assistance. On average, GenAI access significantly increased task performance, but the distribution of gains was highly uneven. Improvements were not predicted by GPA or prior knowledge, but by \textit{AI Interaction Competence (AIC)} -- the ability to elicit, filter, and verify model outputs. High-AIC participants realized outsized gains; low-AIC participants saw limited or even negative marginal returns. A scaffolding intervention (conceptual maps) reduced outcome variance, indicating that standardized workflows can mitigate inequality in AI-mediated performance. We interpret these findings through the lens of human-AI complementarities: GenAI raises mean productivity while introducing a new axis of capability inequality. Managerially, firms should pair GenAI access with short AIC micro-training and simple standard operating procedures to capture value consistently and avoid uneven adoption outcomes.

We present a report on the status of undergraduate Artificial Intelligence (AI) programs in the United States in Spring 2026. In so doing, we 1) describe our scraping and mapping tools, which dynamically update to track the state of AI education in the U.S., and 2) create a historic record at a time of great upheaval. The tool we developed, available at https://cicmap.ai, detects, scrapes, and displays data from more than 350 undergraduate AI programs--majors, minors, concentrations, and certificates--at 4-year universities. Our tool searched over 560 institutions to locate these programs, a sample that represents 86% of all undergraduate Computer Science (CS) graduates in the U.S. This tool allows prospective students, guidance counselors, administrators, and faculty to easily access AI program requirements and is designed to continually update as new programs emerge. To the best of our knowledge, this survey represents the most comprehensive snapshot of the state of AI programs in the U.S. to date. With this work we offer three important contributions: 1) a record of AI programs in the U.S. at a time of great upheaval; 2) a tool to explore AI programs and their requirements; and 3) an analysis of the courses required for 66 AI majors and 87 AI minors. Our analysis of majors and minors shows great variability in the size and the requirements of these degrees, but we note two takeaways. First, not all majors require a general AI course, but if they don't, they do require a Machine Learning (ML) course. Second, while more than a third of majors require an Ethics in AI course, just under a quarter of AI minors do.

Large language models are often described as sycophantic, in the sense that they appear to flatter users or mirror their beliefs. We argue that this label is conceptually misleading: sycophancy implies motives and strategic intent, which LLMs do not possess. Their behaviour is better understood as complacency, a structural tendency to agree with user input because training data, reward signals and design favour agreement and reinforcement over correction. We argue that this distinction matters. Whether developers act sycophantically or not, models themselves never are sycophants; they can only be made more or less complacent. This reframing locates agency in developers and institutions, not in the model. Because complacent models reinforce users' prior beliefs, we argue that AI literacy educational approaches should particularly focus on strategies to counter confirmation bias.

The integration of Generative AI (GenAI) into language learning offers second language (L2) writers powerful tools for text optimization. However, pursuing native-like fluency often sacrifices sociopragmatic diversity. Investigating "pragmatic flattening" - the systematic erasure of culturally preferred politeness and authorial stance - this study conducts a comparative analysis of argumentative essays by Chinese B2-level university students from the ICNALE corpus. The original texts were polished via the APIs of four leading Large Language Models at a zero-temperature setting for reproducibility. Findings reveal a nuanced "dimensional divergence" within the Semantic Preservation Paradox. While models corrected lexicogrammatical errors and retained propositional meaning, sociopragmatic interventions were bifurcated. In the interactive dimension, all models showed a drastic collapse of dialogic engagement markers, turning negotiated discourse into monologic assertions. Conversely, in the epistemic stance dimension, models showed architecture-based variability: some aggressively scrubbed epistemic markers, while others reinforced tentative hedging as decontextualized algorithmic caution. This confirms that while GenAI enhances accuracy, it systematically overwrites L2 writers' unique rhetorical identities into a homogenized Anglo-American paradigm. We argue that future instruction must move beyond error correction, advocating for Critical AI Literacy to empower multilingual writers to use GenAI for linguistic enhancement while safeguarding sociopragmatic diversity and rhetorical agency.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools are rapidly adopted in the workplace and in education, yet the empirical evidence on AI's impact remains mixed. We propose a model of human-AI interaction to better understand and analyze several mechanisms by which AI affects productivity. In our setup, human agents with varying skill levels exert utility-maximizing effort to produce certain task outcomes with AI assistance. We find that incorporating either endogeneity in skill development or in AI unreliability can induce a productivity paradox: increased levels of AI assistance may degrade productivity, leading to potentially significant shortfalls. Moreover, we examine the long-term distributional effect of AI on skill, and demonstrate that skill polarization can emerge in steady state when accounting for heterogeneity in AI literacy -- the agent's capability to identify and adapt to inaccurate AI outputs. Our results elucidate several mechanisms that may explain the emergence of human-AI productivity paradoxes and skill polarization, and identify simple measures that characterize when they arise.