Mapping Public Perception of Artificial Intelligence: Expectations, Risk-Benefit Tradeoffs, and Value As Determinants for Societal Acceptance

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.19356v1
• Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 20:03:01 GMT
• Title: Mapping Public Perception of Artificial Intelligence: Expectations, Risk-Benefit Tradeoffs, and Value As Determinants for Societal Acceptance
• Authors: Philipp Brauner, Felix Glawe, Gian Luca Liehner, Luisa Vervier, Martina Ziefle,
• Abstract summary: Using a representative sample of 1100 participants from Germany, this study examines mental models of AI. Participants quantitatively evaluated 71 statements about AI's future capabilities. We present rankings of these projections alongside visual mappings illustrating public risk-benefit tradeoffs.
• Score: 0.20971479389679332
• License:
• Abstract: Understanding public perception of artificial intelligence (AI) and the tradeoffs between potential risks and benefits is crucial, as these perceptions might shape policy decisions, influence innovation trajectories for successful market strategies, and determine individual and societal acceptance of AI technologies. Using a representative sample of 1100 participants from Germany, this study examines mental models of AI. Participants quantitatively evaluated 71 statements about AI's future capabilities (e.g., autonomous driving, medical care, art, politics, warfare, and societal divides), assessing the expected likelihood of occurrence, perceived risks, benefits, and overall value. We present rankings of these projections alongside visual mappings illustrating public risk-benefit tradeoffs. While many scenarios were deemed likely, participants often associated them with high risks, limited benefits, and low overall value. Across all scenarios, 96.4% ($r^2=96.4\%$) of the variance in value assessment can be explained by perceived risks ($\beta=-.504$) and perceived benefits ($\beta=+.710$), with no significant relation to expected likelihood. Demographics and personality traits influenced perceptions of risks, benefits, and overall evaluations, underscoring the importance of increasing AI literacy and tailoring public information to diverse user needs. These findings provide actionable insights for researchers, developers, and policymakers by highlighting critical public concerns and individual factors essential to align AI development with individual values.

Related papers

• Fully Autonomous AI Agents Should Not be Developed [58.88624302082713]
  This paper argues that fully autonomous AI agents should not be developed. In support of this position, we build from prior scientific literature and current product marketing to delineate different AI agent levels. Our analysis reveals that risks to people increase with the autonomy of a system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-04T19:00:06Z)
• Global Perspectives of AI Risks and Harms: Analyzing the Negative Impacts of AI Technologies as Prioritized by News Media [3.2566808526538873]
  AI technologies have the potential to drive economic growth and innovation but can also pose significant risks to society. One way to understand these nuances is by looking at how the media reports on AI. We analyze a broad and diverse sample of global news media spanning 27 countries across Asia, Africa, Europe, Middle East, North America, and Oceania.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-23T19:14:11Z)
• Human services organizations and the responsible integration of AI: Considering ethics and contextualizing risk(s) [0.0]
  Authors argue that ethical concerns about AI deployment vary significantly based on implementation context and specific use cases. They propose a dimensional risk assessment approach that considers factors like data sensitivity, professional oversight requirements, and potential impact on client wellbeing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-20T19:38:21Z)
• AI Perceptions Across Cultures: Similarities and Differences in Expectations, Risks, Benefits, Tradeoffs, and Value in Germany and China [0.20971479389679332]
  This study explores public mental models of AI using micro scenarios to assess reactions to 71 statements about AI's potential future impacts. German participants tended toward more cautious assessments, whereas Chinese participants expressed greater optimism regarding AI's societal benefits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T13:34:44Z)
• Misalignments in AI Perception: Quantitative Findings and Visual Mapping of How Experts and the Public Differ in Expectations and Risks, Benefits, and Value Judgments [0.20971479389679332]
  This study examines how the general public and academic AI experts perceive AI's capabilities and impact across 71 scenarios. Participants evaluated each scenario on four dimensions: expected probability, perceived risk and benefit, and overall sentiment (or value) The findings reveal significant quantitative differences: experts anticipate higher probabilities, perceive lower risks, report greater utility, and express more favorable sentiment toward AI compared to the non-experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T12:51:45Z)
• Engineering Trustworthy AI: A Developer Guide for Empirical Risk Minimization [53.80919781981027]
  Key requirements for trustworthy AI can be translated into design choices for the components of empirical risk minimization. We hope to provide actionable guidance for building AI systems that meet emerging standards for trustworthiness of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T07:53:32Z)
• Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits [54.648819983899614]
  General purpose AI seems to have lowered the barriers for the public to use AI and harness its power. We introduce PARTICIP-AI, a framework for laypeople to speculate and assess AI use cases and their impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T19:12:37Z)
• Model evaluation for extreme risks [46.53170857607407]
  Further progress in AI development could lead to capabilities that pose extreme risks, such as offensive cyber capabilities or strong manipulation skills. We explain why model evaluation is critical for addressing extreme risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T16:38:43Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• Quantitative AI Risk Assessments: Opportunities and Challenges [7.35411010153049]
  Best way to reduce risks is to implement comprehensive AI lifecycle governance. Risks can be quantified using metrics from the technical community. This paper explores these issues, focusing on the opportunities, challenges, and potential impacts of such an approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-13T21:47:25Z)
• Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making [53.62514158534574]
  We study whether features that reveal case-specific model information can calibrate trust and improve the joint performance of the human and AI. We show that confidence score can help calibrate people's trust in an AI model, but trust calibration alone is not sufficient to improve AI-assisted decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-07T15:33:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.