Rethinking AI Literacy Education in Higher Education: Bridging Risk Perception and Responsible Adoption

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.29935v1
• Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2026 16:08:16 GMT
• Title: Rethinking AI Literacy Education in Higher Education: Bridging Risk Perception and Responsible Adoption
• Abstract summary: This study analyzed responses from 139 students in Computer Science, Data Science/Data Analytics, and other disciplines.<n>Students expressed substantially higher concern for concrete, explicitly stated risks.<n>Perceived risk and willingness to adopt AI demonstrated a clear inverse relationship.
• Score: 0.3823356975862005
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: As AI becomes increasingly embedded across societal domains, understanding how future AI practitioners, particularly technology students, perceive its risks is essential for responsible development and adoption. This study analyzed responses from 139 students in Computer Science, Data Science/Data Analytics, and other disciplines using both explicit AI risk ratings and scenario-based assessments of risk and adoption willingness. Four key findings emerged: (1) Students expressed substantially higher concern for concrete, explicitly stated risks than for abstract or scenario-embedded risks; (2) Perceived risk and willingness to adopt AI demonstrated a clear inverse relationship; (3) Although technical education narrowed gender differences in risk awareness, male students reported higher adoption willingness; and (4) A form of "risk underappreciation" was observed, wherein students in AI-related specializations showed both elevated explicit risk awareness and higher willingness to adopt AI, despite lower recognition of risks in applied scenarios. These findings underscore the need for differentiated AI literacy strategies that bridge the gap between awareness and responsible adoption and offer valuable insights for educators, policymakers, industry leaders, and academic institutions aiming to cultivate ethically informed and socially responsible AI practitioners.

Related papers

• Frontier AI Risk Management Framework in Practice: A Risk Analysis Technical Report v1.5 [61.787178868669265]
  This technical report presents an updated and granular assessment of five critical dimensions: cyber offense, persuasion and manipulation, strategic deception, uncontrolled AI R&D, and self-replication.<n>This work reflects our current understanding of AI frontier risks and urges collective action to mitigate these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-16T04:30:06Z)
• Artificial Intelligence Competence of K-12 Students Shapes Their AI Risk Perception: A Co-occurrence Network Analysis [0.5424799109837065]
  Students reported their self-perceived AI competence and concerns related to AI across systemic, institutional, and personal domains.<n>Students with lower competence emphasized personal and learning-related risks, such as reduced creativity, lack of critical thinking, and misuse.<n>Students with higher competence focused more on systemic and institutional risks, including bias, inaccuracy, and cheating.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-01T12:40:24Z)
• "We are not Future-ready": Understanding AI Privacy Risks and Existing Mitigation Strategies from the Perspective of AI Developers in Europe [56.1653658714305]
  We interviewed 25 AI developers based in Europe to understand which privacy threats they believe pose the greatest risk to users, developers, and businesses.<n>We find that there is little consensus among AI developers on the relative ranking of privacy risks.<n>While AI developers are aware of proposed mitigation strategies for addressing these risks, they reported minimal real-world adoption.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T13:51:33Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• Fully Autonomous AI Agents Should Not be Developed [50.61667544399082]
  This paper argues that fully autonomous AI agents should not be developed.<n>In support of this position, we build from prior scientific literature and current product marketing to delineate different AI agent levels.<n>Our analysis reveals that risks to people increase with the autonomy of a system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-04T19:00:06Z)
• Perception Gaps in Risk, Benefit, and Value Between Experts and Public Challenge Socially Accepted AI [0.0]
  This study examines how the general public and academic AI experts perceive AI's capabilities and impact.<n>The scenarios span domains such as sustainability, healthcare, job performance, societal inequality, art, and warfare.<n>Experts consistently anticipate higher probabilities, perceive lower risks, report greater benefits, and express more positive sentiment toward AI compared to the non-experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T12:51:45Z)
• Implications for Governance in Public Perceptions of Societal-scale AI Risks [0.29022435221103454]
  Voters perceive AI risks as both more likely and more impactful than experts, and also advocate for slower AI development. Policy interventions may best assuage collective concerns if they attempt to more carefully balance mitigation efforts across all classes of societal-scale risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-10T11:52:25Z)
• AI and the Iterable Epistopics of Risk [1.26404863283601]
  The risks AI presents to society are broadly understood to be manageable through general calculus. This paper elaborates how risk is apprehended and managed by a regulator, developer and cyber-security expert.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-29T13:33:22Z)
• Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits [54.648819983899614]
  General purpose AI seems to have lowered the barriers for the public to use AI and harness its power. We introduce PARTICIP-AI, a framework for laypeople to speculate and assess AI use cases and their impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T19:12:37Z)
• Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress [171.05448842016125]
  We describe risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, and irreversible loss of human control over autonomous AI systems. There is a lack of consensus about how exactly such risks arise, and how to manage them. Present governance initiatives lack the mechanisms and institutions to prevent misuse and recklessness, and barely address autonomous systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T17:59:06Z)
• QB4AIRA: A Question Bank for AI Risk Assessment [19.783485414942284]
  QB4AIRA comprises 293 prioritized questions covering a wide range of AI risk areas. It serves as a valuable resource for stakeholders in assessing and managing AI risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-16T09:18:44Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.