Whose readiness counts? Disagreement within and between sectors in perceived AI and robotics preparedness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23406v1
• Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 15:52:18 GMT
• Title: Whose readiness counts? Disagreement within and between sectors in perceived AI and robotics preparedness
• Abstract summary: Readiness is perceived community preparedness and available resources, not personal willingness or audited organisational capability.<n>Manufacturing has the highest mean readiness, yet shop-floor robotics, process-optimisation AI and general decision-support applications are judged differently.<n> Sector rankings are therefore best used as portfolio summaries rather than evidence that an industry is uniformly ready or behind.
• Score: 3.364230370922355
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: AI and Industry 4.0 readiness assessments often summarise preparedness using a single score for an organisation, application domain or sector. Those summaries can conceal disagreement about the same technology and variation among applications grouped under one sector label. We test how much information is lost through this aggregation using a card-based survey in which 982 respondents provided 15,200 readiness evaluations across 17 named AI and robotics challenges. Readiness is perceived community preparedness and available resources, not personal willingness or audited organisational capability. Respondents frequently disagreed about identical challenges, with card-level readiness standard deviations of $1.03$-$1.26$ on a five-point scale. A crossed decomposition attributes 32.7% of observed variation to stable respondent differences, 7.3% to differences among challenges, and 60.0% to response-level variation that also contains measurement error. Differences among challenge-family means account for only about 2% of variation, with substantially more variation among people, applications and person-family judgements. Manufacturing has the highest mean readiness, yet shop-floor robotics, process-optimisation AI and general decision-support applications are judged differently. Computer-science and AI/ML respondents report higher readiness than non-technical respondents across challenge families, whereas engineering respondents do not report higher Manufacturing readiness. Sector rankings are therefore best used as portfolio summaries rather than evidence that an industry is uniformly ready or behind. Readiness reporting should retain application-level disagreement, disclose whose judgements form the average, and consider ethics, cyber security, literacy and capability needs without collapsing them into a single score.

Related papers

• Ready for What? Rethinking AI and Robotics Preparedness for Adoption and Policy [1.9428749720455656]
  We analyse a repeated card-based survey in which 982 15,200 evaluations of 17 participants provided AI and robotics challenges.<n>Because participants evaluated multiple challenges, the design separates stable between-person differences from challenge-specific within-person differences.<n>Within same respondent, one point more complex than usual is associated with about 0.21 points lower readiness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-18T08:44:36Z)
• (Human) Attention Is (Still) All You Need: Human oversight makes AI-assisted social science reliable [15.442870614597451]
  We argue that the reliability of AI-assisted research depends not only on model capability, but also on how cognitive labour is structured between humans and machines.<n>We study this problem through Human-in-the-Loop Economic Research (HLER), a decision architecture based on pre-commitment, decision sequencing, accountability, and attention allocation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T03:22:24Z)
• Design and Evaluation of Multi-Agent AI Oracle Systems for Prediction Market Resolution [0.0]
  Prediction markets aggregate collective intelligence to forecast uncertain events.<n>Existing oracle systems tradeoff fast but brittle automation against accurate but costly human arbitration.<n>We evaluate whether multi-agent LLM architectures can improve oracle resolution accuracy over single-model baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-29T03:44:19Z)
• The Trust Paradox: How CS Researchers Engage LLM Leaderboards [49.627487948130444]
  Leaderboards rank AI models using standardized benchmarks, but how they shape researchers' actual practice remains empirically uncharted.<n>We find a near-universal paradox of pragmatic skepticism: while participants expressed deep distrust of leaderboard rankings, they continued to use them as rough decision-making aids.<n>We translate these findings into concrete design recommendations that align evaluation infrastructure with how researchers actually use it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T18:09:26Z)
• OccuBench: Evaluating AI Agents on Real-World Professional Tasks via Language Environment Simulation [57.505743202759646]
  OccuBench is a benchmark covering 100 real-world professional task scenarios across 10 industry categories and 65 specialized domains.<n>Our multi-agent synthesis pipeline automatically produces evaluation instances with guaranteed solvability, calibrated difficulty, and document-grounded diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T00:27:32Z)
• AIDABench: AI Data Analytics Benchmark [62.45908988324612]
  AIDABench is a benchmark for evaluating AI systems on complex data analytics tasks in an end-to-end manner.<n>AIDABench encompasses 600+ diverse document analysis tasks across three core capability dimensions: question answering, data visualization, and file generation.<n>We evaluate 11 state-of-the-art models on AIDABench, spanning both proprietary (e.g., Claude Sonnet 4.5, Gemini 3 Pro Preview) and open-source (e.g., Qwen3-Max-2026-01-23-Thinking) families.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T08:58:05Z)
• Encyclo-K: Evaluating LLMs with Dynamically Composed Knowledge Statements [78.87065404966002]
  Existing benchmarks predominantly curate questions at the question level.<n>We propose Encyclo-K, a statement-based benchmark that rethinks benchmark construction from the ground up.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-31T13:55:54Z)
• GESA: Graph-Enhanced Semantic Allocation for Generalized, Fair, and Explainable Candidate-Role Matching [5.714160612687252]
  Current approaches suffer from semantic inflexibility, persistent demographic bias, opacity in decision-making processes, and poor scalability under dynamic policy constraints.<n>We present GESA, a comprehensive framework that addresses these limitations through the integration of domain-adaptive transformer embeddings, heterogeneous self-supervised graph neural networks, adversarial debiasing mechanisms, multi-objective genetic optimization, and explainable AI components.<n>Our experimental evaluation on large-scale international benchmarks demonstrates superior performance with 94.5% top-3 allocation accuracy, 37% improvement in diversity representation, 0.98 fairness score across demographic categories, and sub-second end-to-end latency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T19:41:55Z)
• General Scales Unlock AI Evaluation with Explanatory and Predictive Power [57.7995945974989]
  benchmarking has guided progress in AI, but it has offered limited explanatory and predictive power for general-purpose AI systems.<n>We introduce general scales for AI evaluation that can explain what common AI benchmarks really measure.<n>Our fully-automated methodology builds on 18 newly-crafted rubrics that place instance demands on general scales that do not saturate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-09T01:13:56Z)
• Bridging the Communication Gap: Evaluating AI Labeling Practices for Trustworthy AI Development [41.64451715899638]
  High-level AI labels, inspired by frameworks like EU energy labels, have been proposed to make the properties of AI models more transparent.<n>This study evaluates AI labeling through qualitative interviews along four key research questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-21T06:00:14Z)
• Causal Fairness Analysis [68.12191782657437]
  We introduce a framework for understanding, modeling, and possibly solving issues of fairness in decision-making settings. The main insight of our approach will be to link the quantification of the disparities present on the observed data with the underlying, and often unobserved, collection of causal mechanisms. Our effort culminates in the Fairness Map, which is the first systematic attempt to organize and explain the relationship between different criteria found in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-23T01:06:34Z)

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.