For the public to be prepared to deliberate about the proper role (if any) of artificial superintelligence in society, artificial intelligence literacy needs to address technical, empirical, and normative philosophical topics related to this task. Yet recent reviews of artificial intelligence literacy studies and frameworks suggest that artificial superintelligence receives little to no coverage and that the philosophical dimensions of artificial intelligence literacy are often minimized. Toward supporting the development of artificial superintelligence in literacy approaches, curricula, and policy, we conduct a scoping review of the last 20 years of English-language philosophy articles on artificial superintelligence in the PhilPapers database. We reviewed 65 articles using both bibliometric and thematic forms of analysis. Using qualitative methods, we identify 9 primary themes and 50 subthemes in these articles, as well as the domains of philosophy covered in each. In this set of articles, three topics with an axiological focus—artificial superintelligence value alignment (n = 41), existential risk (n = 33), and machine ethics (n = 31)—were identified as the most common themes. We also identify the foundational texts most frequently cited by articles in the study set. By placing these themes in dialogue with artificial intelligence literacy reviews, we identify three main types of opportunities to support deeper artificial superintelligence literacy: (1) content opportunities, (2) skill opportunities, and (3) pedagogical opportunities. Specifically, we recommend expanding both artificial superintelligence and philosophical content in artificial intelligence literacy, developing argument assessment skills through computational thinking, and extending artificial intelligence literacy pedagogies to support philosophical inquiry into foundational principles of artificial intelligence and artificial superintelligence.
AkgunSGreenhowC (2022) Artificial intelligence in education: Addressing ethical challenges in K-12 settings. AI and Ethics2(3): 431–440.
4.
AliSDiPaolaDLeeI, et al. (2021) Children as creators, thinkers and citizens in an AI-driven future. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence2: 100040.
5.
*AndreottaAJ (2021) The hard problem of AI rights. AI & Society36(1): 19–32.
6.
ArkseyHO’MalleyL (2005) Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology8(1): 19–32.
7.
*ArmstrongSSandbergABostromN (2012) Thinking inside the box: Controlling and using an oracle AI. Minds and Machines22(4): 299–324.
8.
*BatinMTurchinAMarkovS, et al. (2017) Artificial intelligence in life extension: From deep learning to superintelligence. Informatica41(4): 401–417.
9.
BeauchampTL (2003) The nature of applied ethics. A Companion to Applied Ethics26: 1–17.
10.
*BostromN (2012) The superintelligent will: Motivation and instrumental rationality in advanced artificial agents. Minds and Machines22(2): 71–85.
11.
BostromN (2014) Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press.
12.
BourgetDChalmersDJ (2023) Philosophers on philosophy: The 2020 Philpapers survey. Philosophers’ Imprint23: 1–53.
13.
*BoydMWilsonN (2018) Existential risks: New Zealand needs a method to agree on a value framework and how to quantify future lives at risk. Policy Quarterly14(3): 58–65.
14.
*BoylesRJMJoaquinJJ (2020) Why friendly AIs won’t be that friendly: A friendly reply to Muehlhauser and Bostrom. AI & Society35(2): 505–507.
15.
BozkurtAKaradenizABaneresD, et al. (2021) Artificial intelligence and reflections from educational landscape: A review of AI studies in half a century. Sustainability13(2): 800.
16.
*BradleyP (2020) Risk management standards and the active management of malicious intent in artificial superintelligence. AI & Society35(2): 319–328.
17.
*BrödnerP (2018) “Super-intelligent” machine: Technological exuberance or the road to subjection. AI & Society33(3): 335–346.
18.
*CarayannisEGDraperJ (2023) Optimising peace through a Universal Global Peace Treaty to constrain the risk of war from a militarised artificial superintelligence. AI & Society38(6): 2679–2692.
19.
*CasacubertaDGuersenzvaigA (2019) Using Dreyfus’ legacy to understand justice in algorithm‑based processes. AI & Society34(2): 313–319.
20.
Casal-OteroLCatalaAFernández-MoranteC, et al. (2023) AI literacy in K-12: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education10: 29.
21.
*ÇelikY (2023) Answering divine love: Human distinctiveness in the light of Islam and artificial superintelligence. Sophia62(4): 679–696.
22.
*ChalmersDJ (2012) The singularity: A reply to commentators. Journal of Consciousness Studies19(7–8): 141–167.
23.
*ĆirkovićMM (2022) Who’s really afraid of AI? Anthropocentric bias and postbiological evolution. Belgrade Philosophical Annual35: 17–29.
24.
*CorabiJ (2017a) Superintelligence as moral philosopher. Journal of Consciousness Studies24(5–6): 128–149.
25.
*CorabiJ (2017b) Superintelligent AI and skepticism. Journal of Ethics and Emerging Technologies27(1): 4–23.
26.
CorbinJStraussA (2015) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage.
27.
*CoseruC (2024) Artificial minds and the dilemma of personal identity. Philosophy East and West74(2): 281–297.
28.
*DaleyK (2021) Two arguments against human‑friendly AI. AI and Ethics1(4): 435–444.
29.
*DanaherJ (2015) Why AI doomsayers are like sceptical theists and why it matters. Minds and Machines25(3): 231–246.
30.
*DavisE (2015) Ethical guidelines for a superintelligence. Artificial Intelligence220: 121–124.
31.
*DeCanioSJ (2018) Games between humans and AIs. AI & Society33(4): 557–564.
32.
*DodonovaVDodonovRGorbenkoK (2023) Ethical aspects of artificial intelligence functioning in the XXI century. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Philosophia68(1): 161–173.
33.
*du ToitCW (2019) Artificial intelligence and the question of being. HTS: Theological Studies75(1): 1–10.
34.
*DungL (2024) Is superintelligence necessarily moral?Analysis84(4): 730–738.
35.
EllisGWOryECBhushanN (2005) Organizing a K-12 AI curriculum using philosophy of the mind. In: Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education annual conference and exposition copyright. Available at: https://scholarworks.smith.edu/egr_facpubs/96/
36.
FlegerCBAmanuelYKrugelJ (2023) Learning tools using block-based programming for AI education. In: 2023 IEEE global engineering education conference(EDUCON), Salmiya, Kuwait, 1–4 May, pp.1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON54358.2023.10125154
37.
FloridiLCowlsJ (2022) A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. In: SilvioC (ed.) Machine Learning and the City: Applications in Architecture and Urban Design. John Wiley, pp.535–545.
38.
GabrielI (2020) Artificial intelligence, values, and alignment. Minds and Machines30(3): 411–437.
39.
*GalanosV (2017) Singularitarianism and schizophrenia. AI & Society32(4): 573–590.
40.
*GallowJD (2024) Instrumental divergence. Philosophical Studies. Epub ahead of print 06 April 2024. DOI: 10.1007/s11098-024-02129-3.
41.
*GillKS (2016) Artificial super intelligence: Beyond rhetoric. AI & Society31(2): 137–143.
42.
*GoertzelB (2015) Superintelligence: Fears, promises and potentials: Reflections on Bostrom’s Superintelligence, Yudkowsky’s From AI to Zombies, and Weaver and Veitas’s “Open-Ended Intelligence.”Journal of Ethics and Emerging Technologies25(2): 55–87.
43.
*GordonJS (2022) Are superintelligent robots entitled to human rights?Ratio35(3): 181–193.
GroszBJGrantDGVredenburghK, et al. (2019) Embedded ethiCS: Integrating ethics across CS education. Communications of the ACM62(8): 54–61.
46.
*GruenwaldO (2020) Taming the digital behemoth: Rethinking the digital–human divide. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies32(1–2): 1–16.
47.
HandM (2025) Does indoctrination still matter?Educational Theory75(2): 276–291.
48.
*HarrisJ (2018) The chimes of freedom: Bob Dylan, epigrammatic validity, and alternative facts. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics27(1): 14–26.
49.
*HarrisJ (2019) Reading the minds of those who never lived: Enhanced beings and the social and ethical challenges posed by super-intelligent AI and reasonably intelligent humans. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics28(4): 585–591.
50.
*HaselagerPMecacciG (2020) Superethics instead of superintelligence: Know thyself, and apply science accordingly. AJOB: Neuroscience11(2): 113–119.
51.
*HoffmannCH (2023) A philosophical view on singularity and strong AI. AI & Society38(4): 1697–1714.
52.
HorstRGladwinD (2022) Multiple futures literacies: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy21(1): 42–64.
53.
*HutterM (2012) Can intelligence explode?Journal of Consciousness Studies19(1–2): 143–166.
54.
HsuT-CChangS-CHungY-T (2018) How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education126: 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004
55.
*IsacI (2010) Several arguments for and against superintelligence/“singularity”. Philosophy, Social and Human Disciplines2: 25–31.
56.
*JebariKLundborgJ (2021) Artificial superintelligence and its limits: Why AlphaZero cannot become a general agent. AI & Society36(3): 807–815.
57.
*JeckerNSAtuireCABélisle-PiponJC, et al. (2024) AI and the falling sky: Interrogating X-Risk. Journal of Medical Ethics50(12): 811–817.
58.
KaspersenMHBilstrupKEKVan MechelenM, et al. (2022) High school students exploring machine learning and its societal implications: Opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction34: 100539.
59.
LaupichlerMCAsterASchirchJ, et al. (2022) Artificial intelligence literacy in higher and adult education: A scoping literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence3(4): 100101.
60.
LongDMagerkoB (2020) What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Honolulu, HI, 25–30 April, pp.1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831
61.
*LorencT (2015) Artificial intelligence and the ethics of human extinction. Journal of Consciousness Studies22(9–10): 194–214.
62.
*LuckM (2025) Freedom, AI and God: Why being dominated by a friendly super-AI might not be so bad. AI & Society40(2): 291–298.
63.
*McIntoshD (2010) The transhuman security dilemma. Journal of Evolution and Technology21(2): 32–48.
64.
*MandelbaumE (2022) Everything and more: The prospects of whole brain emulation. Journal of Philosophy119(8): 444–459.
65.
*MoretAR (2023) Taking into account sentient non-humans in AI ambitious value learning: Sentientist coherent extrapolated volition. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness10(2): 309–334.
66.
*MüllerVCCannonM (2022) Existential risk from AI and orthogonality: Can we have it both ways?Ratio35(1): 25–36.
67.
*NaglL (2022) Digital technology: Reflections on the difference between instrumental rationality and practical reason. Kantian Journal41(1): 60–88.
68.
NgDTKLeeMTanRJY, et al. (2023). A review of AI teaching and learning from 2000 to 2020. Education and Information Technologies28(7): 8445–8501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11491-w
69.
NgDTKLeungJKLChuKWS, et al. (2021) AI literacy: Definition, teaching, evaluation and ethical issues. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology58(1): 504–509.
70.
NgDTKSuJLeungJKL, et al. (2024) Artificial intelligence (AI) literacy education in secondary schools: A review. Interactive Learning Environments32(10): 6204–6224.
71.
NorouziNChaturvediSRutledgeM (2020) Lessons learned from teaching machine learning and natural language processing to high school students. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence34(9): 13397–13403.
72.
*NyholmS (2019) Other minds, other intelligences: The problem of attributing agency to machines. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics28(4): 592–598.
RussellSNorvigP (2021) Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (4th edn.). Pearson.
81.
*ScheesseleMR (2022) The hard limit on human nonanthropocentrism. AI & Society37(1): 49–65.
82.
*SchradleN (2020) In algorithms we trust: Magical thinking, superintelligent AI and quantum computing. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science55(3): 733–747.
83.
*ShanahanM (2012) Satori before singularity. Journal of Consciousness Studies19(7–8): 87–102.
84.
*ShymkoV (2018) In pursuit of the functional definition of a mind: The inevitability of the language ontology. Psycholinguistics23(1): 327–346.
85.
*SotalaK (2017) How feasible is the rapid development of artificial superintelligence?Physica Scripta92(11): 113001.
86.
*SotalaKGloorL (2017) Superintelligence as a cause or cure for risks of astronomical suffering. Informatica41(4): 389–400.
87.
*SotalaKYampolskiyRV (2015) Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: A survey. Physica Scripta90(1): 018001.
88.
*SøvikAO (2022) What overarching ethical principle should a superintelligent AI follow?AI & Society37(4): 1505–1518.
89.
*SparrowR (2024) Friendly AI will still be our master. Or, why we should not want to be the pets of super-intelligent computers. AI & Society39(5): 2439–2444.
90.
*SteinhartE (2008) Teilhard de Chardin and transhumanism. Journal of Evolution and Technology20(1): 1–22.
91.
StrechDSofaerN (2012) How to write a systematic review of reasons. Journal of Medical Ethics38(2): 121–126.
92.
SuJGuoKChenX, et al. (2023a) Teaching artificial intelligence in K-12 classrooms: A scoping review. Interactive Learning Environments32(9): 5207–5226.
93.
SuJNgDTKChuSKW (2023b) Artificial intelligence (AI) literacy in early childhood education: The challenges and opportunities. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence4(1): 100124.
94.
*SzocikKTkaczBGulczyńskiP (2020) The revelation of superintelligence. AI & Society35(3): 755–758.
95.
TanchukNJ (2025) Deep ASI literacy: Educating for alignment with artificial super intelligent systems. Educational Theory75(4): 739–764.
96.
TaylorRM (2017) Indoctrination and social context: A system-based approach to identifying the threat of indoctrination and the responsibilities of educators. Journal of Philosophy of Education51(1): 38–58.
97.
*TorranceS (2012) Super-intelligence and (super-) consciousness. International Journal of Machine Consciousness4(2): 483–501.
98.
*TotschnigW (2019) The problem of superintelligence: Political, not technological. AI & Society34(4): 907–920.
99.
TouretzkyDGardner-McCuneCMartinF, et al. (2019) Envisioning AI for K-12: What should every child know about AI?Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence33(01): 9795–9799.
100.
*TurchinADenkenbergerDGreenBP (2019) Global solutions vs. local solutions for the AI safety problem. Big Data and Cognitive Computing3(1): 16.
101.
WilliamsRAliSDevasiaN, et al. (2023) AI + ethics curricula for middle school youth: Lessons learned from three project-based curricula. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education33(2): 325–383.
102.
WingJM (2008) Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. 366: 3717–3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118
103.
*YampolskiyRV (2012) Leakproofing the singularity: Artificial intelligence confinement problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies19(1–2): 194–214.
104.
*YampolskiyRV (2022) On the controllability of artificial intelligence: An analysis of limitations. Journal of Cyber Security and Mobility11(3): 321–404.
105.
YampolskiyRV (2024) AI: Unexplainable, Unpredictable, Uncontrollable. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
106.
YimIHYSuJ (2025) Artificial intelligence (AI) learning tools in K-12 education: A scoping review. Journal of Computers in Education12(1): 93–131.
YueMJongMSYDaiY (2022) Pedagogical design of K-12 artificial intelligence education: A systematic review. Sustainability14(23): 15620.
109.
ZhangHLeeIAliS, et al. (2023) Integrating ethics and career futures with technical learning to promote AI literacy for middle school students: An exploratory study. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education33: 290–324.
110.
ZhangSGanapathy PrasadPSchroederNL (2025) Learning about AI: A systematic review of reviews on AI literacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research63(5): 1292–1322.
