Context: I am an instructor at a public university in the United States. This reports how students at my institution appear to be thinking about AI as of spring/summer 2026. This is drawn mostly from interaction with my own students (both in spring semester classes and a summer class) as well as from a day-long workshop on AI that I moderated for a student organization. Input from my students took the form of universal, written, pre-class submissions plus self-selected participation into discussion.

What I present below mostly takes the form of a synthetic consensus from these discussions. There were obviously a range of views on any given issue.

Student Background: The students from my courses who participated in these discussions have moderate exposure to AI agents via those courses. All of them had nearly completed a Claude Code project by the time of the discussions and had extensively used AI for other coursework (in addition to whatever personal use predates that). They had done readings (which varied across the courses) establishing baseline knowledge on AI, the geopolitics of AI, and AI risk. I had also lectured on these topics. The students participating in the workshop had self-selected into a day-long intensive event on AI but I can’t speak to their exact level of background knowledge or exposure to ideas.

Biases: My courses are all in the general area of global politics, and AI (inclusive of AI risk) fits into them as a topic of geopolitical (and especially national security) importance, taking over the “topical” slot at the end of the semester where in another world we might be talking about Ukraine or Iran or the Trump tariffs. This, and my other views, probably have some influence on the students. The frames they likely have picked up from me:

AI is very important. If nothing else, dedicating multiple course periods to the topic shows this via revealed preference. This is also something I have stated to them in an unqualified way.
Given overall course content, students will naturally think that international competition is important, that tools like the prisoner’s dilemma are an important way of thinking about situations like AI, and will have absorbed a healthy skepticism about international law.
My general approach telegraphs a receptiveness to “sober” forms of argument, an interest in counterintuitive strategic thinking, a distaste f

...

Ekwealor Naomi

Ekwealor Naomi