The agent/consumer distinction is not primarily technical sophistication but capacity to interrogate the assumptions of AI outputs¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r2 · q1
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? A technically sophisticated user operating within AI-as-productivity-tool logic remains a consumer, while a user with modest technical skills who can interrogate AI outputs' assumptions exercises epistemic agency the competency model does not capture. → Brady D. Lund and Zoë Abbie Teel 2026

Evidence¶

Brady D. Lund and Zoë Abbie Teel 2026¶

Brady D. Lund and Zoë Abbie Teel. (2026). AI Literacy: An Exercise in Power-Knowledge. University of North Texas. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.27547 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.27547

q1 · i? · theoretical · r2

Conceptual argument drawing the paper's firm distinction between consumers, who receive and evaluate outputs within an unshaped frame, and agents, who understand the frame itself, interrogate its assumptions, and participate in governance. The distinction has direct implications for how AI literacy should be taught and assessed.

"A highly technically sophisticated user who uses their skills entirely within the logic of AI as a productivity tool is, in the relevant sense, still a consumer."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• AI's democratizing capacity is structurally contradictory: it amplifies existing capabilities rather than closing gaps between users — a broader claim this one bears on
• The competency model of AI literacy functions as a Freirean banking model, training users to adapt rather than transform — a broader claim this one bears on
• Agentic AI invalidates the three assumptions (evaluation, reversibility, control) on which existing AI literacy frameworks rest — related
• The debt is incurred by deploying organizations but paid by users, patients, and citizens, making it an AI ethics problem — related
• Existing institutional AI literacy frameworks converge on a consumer model with no substantive treatment of training data politics or governance participation — related
• Existing philosophical accounts of AI in education share a Western architecture presupposing subject-object dualism, individualist epistemic agency, and representational knowledge — related
• LEARN reconceptualises scaffolding for GAI contexts as interactive, dialogic, and epistemically regulated interrogation of AI outputs — a broader claim this one bears on
• Most ITS applications augment existing mathematics teaching practices rather than transform instruction, indicating technological sophistication does not independently determine pedagogical value — related
• AI's role in shaping interaction, epistemic agency, and shared regulation in collaborative learning remains under-theorized — a broader claim this one bears on
• Existing AI literacy frameworks treat teacher agency narrowly as tool adoption, leaving human–AI co-agency undertheorized — related
• AI systems are non-neutral socio-technical artifacts embedding cultural assumptions and power relations — related
• One focal student exhibited a critical-pragmatic humanistic AI literacy, conceptualizing AI as a manipulable tool and evaluating it by rhetorical efficiency — related
• A case study of two multilingual undergraduates reveals a productive tension between students' experiments with posthumanist AI literacy and their entrenched humanistic assumptions — related
• Economic, educational, and geopolitical inequalities structure differential access to AI capabilities, reproducing an epistemic hierarchy — a broader claim this one bears on
• All AI-generated outputs in the project underwent mandatory human-in-the-loop review, positioning AI as augmentative rather than substitutive — related