After the co-designed AI session, community members' concerns about AI persisted but became more specific, concrete, and actionable¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · no dated study recorded · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Post-session survey responses showed greater specificity and grounding in concrete issues, while underlying concerns about AI were not fundamentally altered. → post-survey-1

Evidence¶

post-survey-1¶

Yao Lyu, Leonymae Aumentado, Holden Winton, Jared Lee Katzman, Sparkle Berry, Zachary Rowe, Kimberly Sanders, and Tawanna R. Dillahunt. 2026. Co-Designing Community-Centered AI Education for Adults: A Midwestern Case Study. CSCW Companion '26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3785651.3831486

q2 · i? · design · r2

Descriptive comparison of pre- and post-session surveys (approximately 22–25 post-survey respondents depending on question). The article reports the session "did not fundamentally alter community members’ underlying concerns about AI" but supported "a shift from abstract unease to more articulated, specific, and actionable forms of understanding". No effect sizes or tests were printed.

"These patterns suggested that while the session did not fundamentally alter community members’ underlying concerns about AI, it supported a shift from abstract unease to more articulated, specific, and actionable forms of understanding."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Curiosity about AI shifted between pre- and post-survey, from 71% to 50%, which the authors interpret as a move from diffuse curiosity to concrete critical engagement — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Community adults entering an AI education session held broad, generalized concerns about AI, including distrust of self-regulation and privacy worries — related
• The AI education session was associated with a drop in attendees reporting they did not know enough to say about AI, from 23% to 0% — a narrower finding that bears on this claim