AI literacy is AI Safety
Karabo Mokoena, Zwakele Mbanjwa
This paper proposes and demonstrates a six-step pipeline that converts peer-reviewed South African AI research into multilingual, safety-centred social media content. The pipeline uses Lelapa AI's Vulavula API to translate content into South Africa's 11 official languages. The content will be distributed by content creators and influencer partners. For funding we propose using private sector sponsors who are already engaging in literacy programmes and who need an AI literate population and workforce. This removes dependence on government budget cycles and incentivises creators by providing an income stream for their posts.
We run the pipeline on two South African papers. The example on algorithmic bias produces creator formats which include a skit, a storytime reel, and a WhatsApp voice note. These formats can build awareness of how AI outputs can contain bias. The second, on isiZulu natural language processing, produces a tutorial that shows audiences how to use a free South African AI tool in their home language. Together, the examples show that the same pipeline can serve both risk awareness and capability building, at scale, across diverse contexts.
We use South Africa as the primary case study and design the model for replication across the Global South.
This is a strong, safety-conscious work on a real and well-chosen problem. Your related-work section is original by showing that no existing African initiative pairs an influencer-distribution model with a safety frame. The strongest part is the dual-use section: recognising that the same pipeline is a turnkey disinformation engine, and that your sponsors are the very firms the public most needs to scrutinise, is exactly the self-aware risk thinking this track rewards. The honest weak point is that the central claim is untested: the appendices show the pipeline runs (kudos for publishing the raw, broken translation output rather than cleaning it up), but not that a skit changes how anyone thinks about AI, and your own measures are proxies you rightly admit don't capture literacy. The most valuable next step is the pilot you already sketch, the matched-content test with a pre/post survey, that's what turns a well-built pipeline into evidence it produces the literacy you're after.
This paper uses South Africa as a case study to argue that “AI literacy is an AI safety imperative” and presents an AI literacy program “that converts peer-reviewed South African AI research into multilingual, safety-centred social media content” with a sustainable funding model whose example can be replicated across the Global South. It advocates for a safety-focused model beyond the existing formal education programs on upskilling and digital literacy. It offers two detailed examples of how to convert academic papers to multi-lingual social media content.
The recommendations are highly localized and provide well-researched and persuasive examples of past success and failures of similar programing in diverse contexts. The methodology focuses on translation of “how AI affects everyday South Africans” and “ground[ing] content in local realities.”
Due to reliance on LLMs to translate the academic lens, I worry about how to manage unintentional misinformation through oversimplification when prioritizing virality and relying on non-technical experts to spread critical information. How would the program evaluate success, and provide continuously monitored verified channels to build trusted creators at scale?
Regarding funding, the authors were correct to avoid government bureaucracy, but may benefit from the creation and management of a dedicated private sector or nonprofit managed, independent fund that would absorb incoming funds from sponsors and distribute to vetted creators. The fund would manage: the financial structures and payments, vetting and influencer seeding, measurement of outcomes/reporting frameworks, and public record of sponsors outlined in the paper to have a single actor responsible for the operations of the program to ensure success. This would limit the misuse risks outlined in the paper, but introduces centralization risks if the fund’s staff include particular biases towards certain political or issue-specific outcomes.
As outlined in the limitation section, the measurement framework outcome to “shift…public confidence around AI” may prove difficult due to the qualitative nature of this statement and would benefit from quantifiable metrics to assess this specific outcome. I’m also worried about how to ensure these scripts are organic and don’t read as a govt PSA where audiences see the exact same content from multiple creators. When thinking about scaling the program and long term success, I think a better strategy may be to develop technical and academic institutions’ advocacy and communications capacity instead of relying on influencers and content creators. The paper would benefit from a clearer explanation on why a dedicated AI safety lens is required vs. the efficiency of including the safety conversation within a broader conversation on digital resilience.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) AI literacy is AI Safety
},
author={
Karabo Mokoena, Zwakele Mbanjwa
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


