Refined Key Questions for Literature Review

I asked the AI to suggest how the key questions we had identified earlier should now be refined to make them better suited to a literature review. We didn’t want to change their scope (see Project Instructions for AI & Young People Essay#3. Key Questions), simply to make them more operational for the literature review, so they can act as sorting and tagging criteria rather than just big-picture guiding questions.

Right now, the key questions are strategic:

What are the main temptations for young people to outsource their thinking to AI?
What dangers arise from these temptations?

For the initiation phase, we can turn these into research-ready questions that:

are specific enough to guide what we look for in each source;
map naturally onto table columns, tags, and a temptation–danger–mitigation chain; and
cover both internal and external sources in the same framework.

The AI offered the following operational rewrite of the questions. They seemed good, so I accepted them pending more detailed consideration. The intention is to use these as the capture criteria for each source, so that the literature review will naturally produce well-structured content for the later analysis and synthesis phases of work.

Key Questions

1. Temptations to Outsource Thinking

Strategic: What are the main temptations for young people to outsource their thinking to AI?
Operational Sub-Questions:

What specific behaviours are described as outsourcing thinking?
What motivations or needs lead to these behaviours? (e.g., speed, convenience, perceived accuracy, avoiding effort, social/peer influence, anxiety about performance)
What contexts are these behaviours most associated with? (e.g., academic writing, decision-making, problem-solving, creative work)
Which demographic subgroups are mentioned? (university students, school pupils, early-career professionals)
Are there differences in temptation between disciplines or fields of study?

2. Dangers Arising from These Temptations

Strategic: What dangers arise from these temptations, and how do they manifest differently for university students?
Operational Sub-Questions:

Which capabilities or habits are at risk? (e.g., critical thinking, independent research, reflective judgement, creativity)
How do these dangers manifest in academic or personal development?
Are there specific examples or case studies in the source?
Are dangers short-term (e.g., reduced learning in a course) or long-term (e.g., dependency, professional unpreparedness)?
What differences are observed between younger students and university students?
Are dangers framed as direct consequences of AI use or indirect effects via cultural or institutional changes?

3. Nature of “Responsible AI Use”

Strategic: What constitutes “responsible AI use” in this context?
Operational Sub-Questions:

How does the source define or describe “responsible” use?
What practices or habits are recommended? (e.g., fact-checking, combining AI with human review, limiting use to certain stages of work)
Are there any ethical frameworks or guidelines referenced?
How does the source suggest users balance AI assistance with independent thinking?

4. Mitigation of Dangers Through Responsible AI Use

Strategic: Can responsible AI use mitigate these dangers effectively, and if so, how?
Operational Sub-Questions:

Which specific dangers are addressed by responsible use in the source?
What mechanisms or strategies are proposed? (e.g., education, tool design, institutional policy)
Is there evidence of effectiveness? (research findings, pilot programmes, anecdotal reports)
What are the limits of responsible use — where might dangers persist despite good practice?
Does the source propose systemic changes (e.g., curriculum redesign) or focus on individual responsibility?