Autonomy
Critical thinking should help participants question AI outputs, identify competing interests and form their own judgments. Mentorship should support inquiry rather than prescribe a single acceptable viewpoint.
Education & youth IWIB4AI session Needs review
Global Youth Leadership Development Program on AI Ethics
Helping young people critically assess AI and develop leadership grounded in human rights and ethical responsibility.
Draft – legal and case law references not yet verified
Summary
This use case concerns a multi-week online programme that combines AI ethics education with mentorship for young people. It develops critical thinking about how AI shapes society and encourages engagement grounded in human rights and ethical responsibility. Its value lies in preparing young people to question AI systems and participate meaningfully in decisions about their use.
The Problem
Young people need opportunities to evaluate AI’s social consequences, rather than simply learn to use its tools. The challenge is to make ethical learning accessible and support independent judgment without allowing adult-led mentorship to displace young people’s own perspectives.
Ethical Grounds
Inclusion
An online programme should account for differences in connectivity, language, disability and prior technical knowledge. Youth leadership is more meaningful when participation is not limited to already advantaged learners.
Human dignity
A human-rights approach should connect AI ethics to concrete effects on people, including discrimination, manipulation and loss of agency. Participants should learn to assess people as rights-holders rather than merely users or data sources.
Privacy
Where online learning and mentorship involve personal information, participants should understand what is collected and why. Participation should not require unnecessary disclosure of personal experiences or sensitive information.
Legal Compliance
| Framework | Provision | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act | Art. 4 | The programme aligns with AI literacy objectives, although Article 4 specifically obliges providers and deployers to support sufficient literacy among staff and others operating AI systems on their behalf. |
| EU Charter of Fundamental Rights | Arts. 14, 24 and 51 | Education rights and, for participants under 18, children’s interests and views provide relevant safeguards within the Charter’s scope of application. |
| GDPR | Arts. 5(1)(c) and 12(1) | Where the GDPR applies to participant data, organisers must minimise collection and communicate processing information clearly, particularly when addressing children. |
Sources
Court & Regulator Decisions
IMY – Skellefteå municipality facial recognition in school (opens in a new tab)
This concrete example helps young learners critically examine institutional power, biometric privacy and whether students can genuinely consent to AI monitoring.
Key Takeaways
- Use concrete AI dilemmas to connect human rights with everyday choices.
- Design accessible learning pathways for varied backgrounds and technical experience.
- Train mentors to encourage independent reasoning and meaningful youth participation.
- Minimise participant data collection and explain privacy practices in age-appropriate language.
Related Use Cases
From the Session
Global Youth Leadership Development Program on AI Ethics