What are AI researchers worried about?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.06223v1
• Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2026 12:34:33 GMT
• Title: What are AI researchers worried about?
• Abstract summary: Survey of more than 4,000 AI researchers is the largest conducted to date.<n>Results suggest the possibility for new forms of public dialogue on AI's harms, risks and opportunities.<n>AI technologies and AI researchers seem to be much more 'normal' than public representations suggest.
• Score: 1.5549963606717785
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: As AI attracts vast investment and attention, there are competing concerns about the technology's opportunities and uncertainties that blend technical and social questions. The public debate, dominated by a few powerful voices, tends to highlight extreme promises and threats. We wanted to know whether public discussions or technology companies' priorities were representative of AI researchers' opinions. Our survey of more than 4,000 AI researchers is, we think, the largest conducted to date. It was designed to understand attitudes to a variety of issues and include some comparisons with public attitudes derived from existing surveys. Most previous surveys of AI researchers have asked them for predictions of passing a technological threshold or the probabilities of some catastrophic event. These surveys mask the uncertainty and diversity that normally characterises scientific research. Our hypothesis was that the opinions of AI researchers would be markedly different from those of members of the public. While there are areas of divergence, particularly in attitudes to the technology's potential benefits, our survey shows some surprising convergence between researchers' and publics' opinions, particularly in the assessment and prioritisation of risk. Responses to an open text question 'What one thing most worries you about AI?' reveal that only 3% of AI researchers prioritise existential risks, despite the prominence given to these risks in media and policy. AI technologies and AI researchers seem to be much more 'normal' than public representations suggest. Our survey results suggest the possibility for new forms of public dialogue on AI's harms, risks and opportunities. Rather than speculating on future potential risks, policymakers and AI researchers should collaborate on understanding and mitigating the range of sociotechnical risks that are already of clear public concern.

Related papers

• "We are not Future-ready": Understanding AI Privacy Risks and Existing Mitigation Strategies from the Perspective of AI Developers in Europe [56.1653658714305]
  We interviewed 25 AI developers based in Europe to understand which privacy threats they believe pose the greatest risk to users, developers, and businesses.<n>We find that there is little consensus among AI developers on the relative ranking of privacy risks.<n>While AI developers are aware of proposed mitigation strategies for addressing these risks, they reported minimal real-world adoption.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T13:51:33Z)
• Advancing Science- and Evidence-based AI Policy [163.43609502905707]
  This paper tackles the problem of how to optimize the relationship between evidence and policy to address the opportunities and challenges of AI.<n>An increasing number of efforts address this problem by often either (i) contributing research into the risks of AI and their effective mitigation or (ii) advocating for policy to address these risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-02T23:20:58Z)
• Perception Gaps in Risk, Benefit, and Value Between Experts and Public Challenge Socially Accepted AI [0.0]
  This study examines how the general public and academic AI experts perceive AI's capabilities and impact.<n>The scenarios span domains such as sustainability, healthcare, job performance, societal inequality, art, and warfare.<n>Experts consistently anticipate higher probabilities, perceive lower risks, report greater benefits, and express more positive sentiment toward AI compared to the non-experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T12:51:45Z)
• Public Perception of AI: Sentiment and Opportunity [0.0]
  We present results of public perception of AI from a survey conducted with 10,000 respondents across ten countries in four continents around the world. Results show that currently an equal percentage of respondents who believe AI will change the world as we know it, also believe AI needs to be heavily regulated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-22T19:11:28Z)
• The Narrow Depth and Breadth of Corporate Responsible AI Research [3.364518262921329]
  We show that the majority of AI firms show limited or no engagement in this critical subfield of AI. Leading AI firms exhibit significantly lower output in responsible AI research compared to their conventional AI research. Our results highlight the urgent need for industry to publicly engage in responsible AI research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-20T17:26:43Z)
• Near to Mid-term Risks and Opportunities of Open-Source Generative AI [94.06233419171016]
  Applications of Generative AI are expected to revolutionize a number of different areas, ranging from science & medicine to education. The potential for these seismic changes has triggered a lively debate about potential risks and resulted in calls for tighter regulation. This regulation is likely to put at risk the budding field of open-source Generative AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-25T21:14:24Z)
• Now, Later, and Lasting: Ten Priorities for AI Research, Policy, and Practice [63.20307830884542]
  Next several decades may well be a turning point for humanity, comparable to the industrial revolution. Launched a decade ago, the project is committed to a perpetual series of studies by multidisciplinary experts. We offer ten recommendations for action that collectively address both the short- and long-term potential impacts of AI technologies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-06T22:18:31Z)
• 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)
• Trustworthy AI: A Computational Perspective [54.80482955088197]
  We focus on six of the most crucial dimensions in achieving trustworthy AI: (i) Safety & Robustness, (ii) Non-discrimination & Fairness, (iii) Explainability, (iv) Privacy, (v) Accountability & Auditability, and (vi) Environmental Well-Being. For each dimension, we review the recent related technologies according to a taxonomy and summarize their applications in real-world systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-12T14:21:46Z)
• A narrowing of AI research? [0.0]
  We study the evolution of the thematic diversity of AI research in academia and the private sector. We measure the influence of private companies in AI research through the citations they receive and their collaborations with other institutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-22T08:23:56Z)
• The Offense-Defense Balance of Scientific Knowledge: Does Publishing AI Research Reduce Misuse? [0.0]
  There is growing concern over the potential misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) research. Publishing scientific research can facilitate misuse of the technology, but the research can also contribute to protections against misuse. This paper addresses the balance between these two effects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2019-12-27T10:20:44Z)

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.