Measuring global AI diffusion remains challenging due to a lack of population-normalized, cross-country usage data. We introduce AI User Share, a novel indicator that estimates the share of each country's working-age population actively using AI tools. Built from anonymized Microsoft telemetry and adjusted for device access and mobile scaling, this metric spans 147 economies and provides consistent, real-time insight into global AI diffusion. We find wide variation in adoption, with a strong correlation between AI User Share and GDP. High uptake is concentrated in developed economies, though usage among internet-connected populations in lower-income countries reveals substantial latent demand. We also detect sharp increases in usage following major product launches, such as DeepSeek in early 2025. While the metric's reliance solely on Microsoft telemetry introduces potential biases related to this user base, it offers an important new lens into how AI is spreading globally. AI User Share enables timely benchmarking that can inform data-driven AI policy.

Purpose: The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) systems like ChatGPT, Claude AI, etc., has a deep impact on how work is done. Predicting how AI will reshape work requires understanding not just its capabilities, but how it is actually being adopted. This study investigates which intrinsic task characteristics drive users' decisions to delegate work to AI systems. Methodology: This study utilizes the Anthropic Economic Index dataset of four million Claude AI interactions mapped to O*NET tasks. We systematically scored each task across seven key dimensions: Routine, Cognitive, Social Intelligence, Creativity, Domain Knowledge, Complexity, and Decision Making using 35 parameters. We then employed multivariate techniques to identify latent task archetypes and analyzed their relationship with AI usage. Findings: Tasks requiring high creativity, complexity, and cognitive demand, but low routineness, attracted the most AI engagement. Furthermore, we identified three task archetypes: Dynamic Problem Solving, Procedural & Analytical Work, and Standardized Operational Tasks, demonstrating that AI applicability is best predicted by a combination of task characteristics, over individual factors. Our analysis revealed highly concentrated AI usage patterns, with just 5% of tasks accounting for 59% of all interactions. Originality: This research provides the first systematic evidence linking real-world generative AI usage to a comprehensive, multi-dimensional framework of intrinsic task characteristics. It introduces a data-driven classification of work archetypes that offers a new framework for analyzing the emerging human-AI division of labor.

As generative AI models, particularly large language models (LLMs), transform educational feedback practices in higher education (HE) contexts, understanding students' perceptions of different sources of feedback becomes crucial for their effective implementation and adoption. This study addresses a critical gap by comparing undergraduate students' trust in LLM, human, and human-AI co-produced feedback in their authentic HE context. More specifically, through a within-subject experimental design involving 91 participants, we investigated factors that predict students' ability to distinguish between feedback types, their perceptions of feedback quality, and potential biases related to the source of feedback. Findings revealed that when the source was blinded, students generally preferred AI and co-produced feedback over human feedback regarding perceived usefulness and objectivity. However, they presented a strong bias against AI when the source of feedback was disclosed. In addition, only AI feedback suffered a decline in perceived genuineness when feedback sources were revealed, while co-produced feedback maintained its positive perception. Educational AI experience improved students' ability to identify LLM-generated feedback and increased their trust in all types of feedback. More years of students' experience using AI for general purposes were associated with lower perceived usefulness and credibility of feedback. These insights offer substantial evidence of the importance of source credibility and the need to enhance both feedback literacy and AI literacy to mitigate bias in student perceptions for AI-generated feedback to be adopted and impact education.

Despite widespread speculation about artificial intelligence's impact on the future of work, we lack systematic empirical evidence about how these systems are actually being used for different tasks. Here, we present a novel framework for measuring AI usage patterns across the economy. We leverage a recent privacy-preserving system to analyze over four million Claude.ai conversations through the lens of tasks and occupations in the U.S. Department of Labor's O*NET Database. Our analysis reveals that AI usage primarily concentrates in software development and writing tasks, which together account for nearly half of all total usage. However, usage of AI extends more broadly across the economy, with approximately 36% of occupations using AI for at least a quarter of their associated tasks. We also analyze how AI is being used for tasks, finding 57% of usage suggests augmentation of human capabilities (e.g., learning or iterating on an output) while 43% suggests automation (e.g., fulfilling a request with minimal human involvement). While our data and methods face important limitations and only paint a picture of AI usage on a single platform, they provide an automated, granular approach for tracking AI's evolving role in the economy and identifying leading indicators of future impact as these technologies continue to advance.

Since generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as OpenAI's ChatGPT became widely available, researchers have used them in the writing process. The consensus of the academic publishing community is that such usage must be declared in the published article. Academ-AI documents examples of suspected undeclared AI usage in the academic literature, discernible primarily due to the appearance in research papers of idiosyncratic verbiage characteristic of large language model (LLM)-based chatbots. This analysis of the first 500 examples collected reveals that the problem is widespread, penetrating the journals and conference proceedings of highly respected publishers. Undeclared AI seems to appear in journals with higher citation metrics and higher article processing charges (APCs), precisely those outlets that should theoretically have the resources and expertise to avoid such oversights. An extremely small minority of cases are corrected post publication, and the corrections are often insufficient to rectify the problem. The 500 examples analyzed here likely represent a small fraction of the undeclared AI present in the academic literature, much of which may be undetectable. Publishers must enforce their policies against undeclared AI usage in cases that are detectable; this is the best defense currently available to the academic publishing community against the proliferation of undisclosed AI.

Generative AI has drawn significant attention from stakeholders in higher education. As it introduces new opportunities for personalized learning and tutoring support, it simultaneously poses challenges to academic integrity and leads to ethical issues. Consequently, governing responsible AI usage within higher education institutions (HEIs) becomes increasingly important. Leading universities have already published guidelines on Generative AI, with most attempting to embrace this technology responsibly. This study provides a new perspective by focusing on strategies for responsible AI governance as demonstrated in these guidelines. Through a case study of 14 prestigious universities in the United States, we identified the multi-unit governance of AI, the role-specific governance of AI, and the academic characteristics of AI governance from their AI guidelines. The strengths and potential limitations of these strategies and characteristics are discussed. The findings offer practical implications for guiding responsible AI usage in HEIs and beyond.

The increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) by students in learning presents new challenges for assessing their learning outcomes in project-based learning (PBL). This paper introduces a co-design study to explore the potential of students' AI usage data as a novel material for PBL assessment. We conducted workshops with 18 college students, encouraging them to speculate an alternative world where they could freely employ AI in PBL while needing to report this process to assess their skills and contributions. Our workshops yielded various scenarios of students' use of AI in PBL and ways of analyzing these uses grounded by students' vision of education goal transformation. We also found students with different attitudes toward AI exhibited distinct preferences in how to analyze and understand the use of AI. Based on these findings, we discuss future research opportunities on student-AI interactions and understanding AI-enhanced learning.

Significant enthusiasm around AI uptake has been witnessed across societies globally. The electoral process -- the time, place and manner of elections within democratic nations -- has been among those very rare sectors in which AI has not penetrated much. Electoral management bodies in many countries have recently started exploring and deliberating over the use of AI in the electoral process. In this paper, we consider five representative avenues within the core electoral process which have potential for AI usage, and map the challenges involved in using AI within them. These five avenues are: voter list maintenance, determining polling booth locations, polling booth protection processes, voter authentication and video monitoring of elections. Within each of these avenues, we lay down the context, illustrate current or potential usage of AI, and discuss extant or potential ramifications of AI usage, and potential directions for mitigating risks while considering AI usage. We believe that the scant current usage of AI within electoral processes provides a very rare opportunity, that of being able to deliberate on the risks and mitigation possibilities, prior to real and widespread AI deployment. This paper is an attempt to map the horizons of risks and opportunities in using AI within the electoral processes and to help shape the debate around the topic.

According to a recent poll conducted in Sweden, 80 percent of residents are favorable about AI and robots, meaning that AI might easily replace human employment. Those being well in Artificial Intelligence and technology, on the other hand, are more likely to favor the expansion of automation throughout Sweden's different industries. AI is also receiving a thumbs up from Swedish healthcare unions and employees, who believe this will improve the number of human skills and provide them with a competitive edge in the global market.

A new report from FICO and Corinium has found that many companies are deploying various forms of AI throughout their businesses with little consideration for the ethical implications of potential problems. The increasing scale of AI is raising the stakes for major ethical questions. There have been hundreds of examples over the last decade of the many disastrous ways AI has been used by companies, from facial recognition systems unable to discern darker skinned faces to healthcare apps that discriminate against African American patients to recidivism calculators used by courts that skew against certain races. Despite these examples, FICO's State of Responsible AI report shows business leaders are putting little effort into ensuring that the AI systems they use are both fair and safe for widespread use. The survey, conducted in February and March, features the insights of 100 AI-focused leaders from the financial services sector, with 20 executives hailing from the US, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific regions.