This self-assessment is part of the Human Wisdom for the Age of AI Field Guide. Be sure to answer all questions, choosing the responses that most closely reflect what you are likely to do in each scenario. There are no right or wrong answers. Your overall score is meant to help you reflect on your use of AI tools. Your results are anonymous and visible only to you after you submit the form. You will receive a new score each time you use this tool. (About this tool)
Here is your human wisdom self-assessment score:
Your Human Wisdom score is calculated as the sum of your responses across scenario-based questions, each designed to capture how you typically work with AI in real situations. The response options are intentionally ordered along a consistent behavioral continuum—from AI-dominant behaviors, through human–AI co-pilot use, to human-dominant judgment and responsibility. As a result, your total score represents an orientation toward AI use, not a measure of ability, intelligence, or performance.
This score should be interpreted as a snapshot of current habits within a specific context, not as a fixed trait. Individuals often move between these zones depending on time pressure, task type, and experience.
The scoring ranges are derived from aggregating patterns across multiple human capacities (curiosity, validation, deep thinking, creativity, emotional/social intelligence, communication, judgment, ethics, adaptability, and purpose). Each question contributes equally to the total, and the ranges reflect clusters of behavioral tendencies, not rigid categories.
Scores in this range indicate a consistent pattern in which AI systems are performing a substantial portion of the cognitive work—generating ideas, shaping decisions, or producing outputs with limited human intervention. At this level, behavior tends to prioritize speed, convenience and immediate task completion, sometimes at the expense of deeper inquiry, independent reasoning and reflective judgment.
This pattern is common in high-pressure environments and does not indicate deficiency; rather, it highlights an over-reliance on external cognitive support. From a behavioral standpoint, this orientation is associated with reduced engagement of higher-order human capacities such as critical evaluation, synthesis, and values-based decision-making.
Scores in this range reflect a blended interaction pattern, in which individuals use AI as a tool while still exercising meaningful human oversight. Behavior in this range is characterized by alternation between delegation and engagement: AI is used to accelerate tasks, but the individual remains involved in interpretation, editing, and decision-making.
This middle range is not transitional by default—it represents a stable and often effective mode of human–AI collaboration. However, behavioral analysis suggests that individuals in this range may show inconsistency across contexts, relying more heavily on AI under time pressure and more independently when stakes are higher or when prompted to reflect.
Scores in this range indicate a pattern in which the individual consistently maintains primary cognitive authority over their work. AI is used selectively—as a tool for augmentation rather than substitution—while core processes such as interpretation, judgment, creativity, and ethical reasoning remain human-led.
At this level, behavior reflects intentional engagement of higher-order capacities, including perspective-taking, synthesis, and values-driven decision-making. Importantly, this orientation does not imply reduced use of AI; rather, it reflects disciplined, context-aware use in which the individual determines when and how AI contributes.
From a behavioral perspective, this range is associated with greater consistency across contexts and a stronger ability to maintain human agency even under pressure.
These ranges are not normative benchmarks and should not be used for ranking or evaluation. They are designed to help individuals recognize patterns in their interaction with AI and identify areas for intentional development. Movement between zones is expected. The goal of this assessment is not to “achieve” a particular score, but to develop awareness of how and when you rely on AI, collaborate with AI and lead your own thinking in the presence of AI.
This self-assessment is a reflective learning tool designed to help people think more clearly about how they use AI in their work. It was developed by Elon University's Imagining the Digital Future Center in partnership with the American Association of Colleges and Universities and used with permission under the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license. The questions are drawn directly from the concepts and exercises in Human Wisdom for the Age of AI: A Field Guide to Cultivating Essential Skills and are written as short, real-world scenarios that reflect common situations where AI tools are used. Rather than testing knowledge or skill, the assessment focuses on patterns of behavior and judgment, especially where responsibility, learning and human values come into play. The response options are intentionally ordered along a continuum—from relying heavily on AI, to working with AI as a co-pilot, to leading with human judgment and responsibility—so the overall score can be understood as an orientation, not a grade or ranking. Scores are calculated as a simple total and are meant to support personal reflection and classroom discussion. Participation is voluntary, responses are anonymous and results are shown only to the individual completing the assessment. The score has no impact on your evaluation or standing. Results should be understood as a snapshot of current habits in a particular context, not as a fixed trait, diagnosis or prediction. This self-assessment complements emerging AI literacy assessments in higher education by focusing on behavioral patterns and human capacities rather than technical knowledge or tool proficiency.
Take a look at frequently asked questions about AI at NIU and available resources.