New research from the University of Albany's Center for Technology in Government (CTG) highlights the potential of public libraries to help communities build the skills needed to critically assess artificial intelligence (AI) tools, understand their risks, and take part in decisions about their use. The study, titled "Who Participates in AI Programs at Public Libraries? Exploring Demographic and Attitudinal Factors," was presented at the 18th International Federation for Information Processing Working Group 8.5 International Conference on Electronic Participation (ePart 2026), held in Athens, Greece. The paper, written by Zong-Xian (Sam) Huang, J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, and Mila Gascó-Hernandez, was included in the conference's published proceedings. The research looks at who joins AI-related programs in public libraries and how people's views on AI's benefits and risks influence their participation. Using data from a January survey of 2,010 U.S. adults, the CTG team found that participation varied based on age, gender, education, and income. For instance, people aged 55 and older were 32.1 percentage points less likely to participate than those aged 18 to 34. Women were 9.8 percentage points less likely than men to take part. Those with at least a four-year college degree were 7.1 percentage points more likely to join AI programs than those without a degree. Similarly, people from households earning over $100,000 annually were 9.4 percentage points more likely to participate than those earning less than $50,000. Nonwhite participants had a 10.4 percentage point higher chance of joining AI programs than white participants, a finding the researchers say needs more exploration. The researchers note that AI education opportunities are not equally available to all, which may create disparities in people's ability to engage in civic discussions about AI. Interestingly, they found that concerns about AI did not always prevent people from participating. Those who had specific worries—such as whether the public has enough knowledge to comment on AI, whether feedback would be used, or whether privacy might be compromised—were more likely to take part in library AI programs than those who had broader, more general concerns. These individuals were labeled "constructively skeptical," meaning their specific questions about AI may actually motivate them to learn more and get involved. This study follows earlier CTG research on how public libraries can help communities understand AI and take part in decisions about its use. Previous work explored how libraries are creating AI-related programs and their potential to address growing digital divides. The new research shifts focus to understanding who is actually participating in these programs and which groups might be left out. The researchers suggest that libraries could partner with local organizations and offer more targeted programs to reach underrepresented groups. They also recommend linking the benefits of AI engagement to real-world impacts on individuals and creating spaces for patrons to ask critical questions about its use.