A student maintained critical distance from GenAI outputs through a paradoxical trust in their untrustworthiness, deriving practical value while staying sceptical¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? One active adopter described trusting GenAI precisely to be untrustworthy, which let him use it for study and work while keeping critical distance. → Fawns 2026

Evidence¶

Fawns 2026¶

Fawns, T., Bearman, M., Corbin, T., Henderson, M., McLean, J., Matthews, K. E., Oberg, G., Liang, Y., & Walton, J. (2026). Illuminating complex student realities of artificial intelligence through an entangled pedagogy framework. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-026-01730-1

q2 · i? · qualitative · r3

Focus-group account of Howard, an active adopter who used GenAI for academic questions and workplace problem-solving. The article reports this stance "helped him to maintain critical distance while still deriving practical value."

"You can trust it to be untrustworthy… that's a level of mistrust that I also kind of trust. It's got that certainty there of being untrustworthy."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students described the verification label as a reason to engage with AI-generated material that did not end their own scrutiny of it
• Students describe concrete verification behaviors for GenAI explanations, treating evaluation as an iterative filter rather than a single accept-or-reject judgment
• Prior knowledge and trust calibration moderate GenAI learning effects: fluent output is most persuasive when learners least can challenge it
• Student experiences with GenAI in design thinking fall into four themes: perceived benefits, ethical concerns, hesitance and acceptance, and critical validation
• Learners selectively filtered and adopted AI-generated feedback while maintaining pedagogical agency — related