Note: For some context on the title image (above) please see an addendum at the end of this post.

This past Friday was AI Literacy day, and I was invited, along with Ian O’Byrne (College of Charleston) to participate in a webinar on the topic. Readers of this blog know that I am somewhat leery of the rush to develop literacy frameworks the moment a new technology comes around. This is best captured in this tongue-firmly-in-cheek post titled Pencil Literacy: A Framework.  

That said, the fact that this webinar was organized by my friend Angela Gunder (Opened Culture) along with Doug Belshaw (We are Open Co-op), meant I could not say no. The video of this enlightening discussion is now available online and embedded below.

Central to my contribution to the discussion was a definition of literacy proposed by Myers (1995). “Literacy” he said, “is the ability to consciously subvert signs.” I have written about this before in an article many years ago and more recently in the context of AI, in this blog post: AI Literacy: The Ethical Overreach?

So it is clear that I love this definition – its crispness, breadth, and the fact that each and every multi-syllabic word in this definition is worth its weight in gold.

That said, as I was writing this blog post, it struck me that there is something missing in this definition—and that it needed one more multi-syllabic word to be complete. So here my new definition of literacy.

Literacy is the developed ability to consciously subvert signs.  

I went back and forth on three different options before landing on “developed.” Others in contention were “learned,” “acquired,” and “cultivated.” Each of these has a different connotation but I went with “developed” since it seemed to convey both acquisition and learning as well as being an ongoing process that evolves and deepens over time. I also considered going with “developing,” but finally chose to go with developed, though I reserve the right to change my mind 🙂

I think this definition shifts our understanding of literacy beyond basic comprehension to a deeper state of agency—one where individuals can control and manipulate how signs are used. I also believe that this definition is particularly relevant in the AI era. True AI literacy isn’t simply about using these tools; it’s about understanding them deeply enough to adapt, redirect, and even challenge them. To be literate in AI means recognizing these systems not as immutable entities but as constructions that can be questioned, redesigned, and repurposed to serve our needs. This definition places creativity and critical agency at its core, emphasizing that true literacy involves not just comprehension but innovation—the ability to bend rules productively and create new meanings and applications. And finally, the addition of the word “developed” means that this is something that we can learn, imbibe, nurture, and grow. It is a state of becoming rather than an end in itself.

---

This is what I love about these conversations. They push me to think about my own ideas, and see them in new ways, to find weaknesses in them, and attempt to make them better. I have written previously about how my conversation with my co-hosts in the AIR GPT podcast helped me understand the importance of creating learning environments that center student agency and frame learning around topics that they truly care about. And now this.

How cool is that.

I was already grateful to Angela, Doug and Ian for this opportunity and conversation. I am now doubly in their debt. You can see and listen to the complete discussion below—though I must add, I was still using the Myers definition of literacy during our conversation. I guess my literacy is still developing.

---

A note on the title image

The title image is a deliberate play on René Magritte’s famous 1929 painting “The Treachery of Images” (La Trahison des Images), which features a smoking pipe with the caption “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” (“This is not a pipe”). Magritte’s work is the perfect visual embodiment of what it means to “consciously subvert signs.”

I’ve loved this painting since high school precisely because it challenges our understanding of representation itself. In my version, I’ve replaced Magritte’s tobacco pipe with a plumbing pipe while keeping the original French text—creating a visual pun that operates on multiple levels. The “real” smoking pipe also appears within the frame, adding another layer to the paradox.

What constitutes “reality” in this digital image? Both pipes are merely pixels on a screen—making the statement “this is not a pipe” technically true—yet language gives us no option but to call them “pipes.” This digital reimagining becomes especially relevant in our AI-saturated world, where representations are increasingly mediated through digital tools that create their own versions of “reality.”

This visual puzzle requires not just familiarity with art history and semiotics but also invites viewers to question how language frames our understanding—a perfect illustration of developed literacy in action. Just as we must learn to see beyond AI’s surface representations to understand its constructed nature, Magritte’s insight reminds us that all representation involves a kind of productive deception that the literate mind can recognize and manipulate.