"Scary Robots": Examining Public Responses to AI

S. Cave, Katelyn Coughlan, Kanta Dihal
{"title":"\"Scary Robots\": Examining Public Responses to AI","authors":"S. Cave, Katelyn Coughlan, Kanta Dihal","doi":"10.1145/3306618.3314232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How AI is perceived by the public can have significant impact on how it is developed, deployed and regulated. Some commentators argue that perceptions are currently distorted or extreme. This paper discusses the results of a nationally representative survey of the UK population on their perceptions of AI. The survey solicited responses to eight common narratives about AI (four optimistic, four pessimistic), plus views on what AI is, how likely it is to impact in respondents' lifetimes, and whether they can influence it. 42% of respondents offered a plausible definition of AI, while 25% thought it meant robots. Of the narratives presented, those associated with automation were best known, followed by the idea that AI would become more powerful than humans. Overall results showed that the most common visions of the impact of AI elicit significant anxiety. Only two of the eight narratives elicited more excitement than concern (AI making life easier, and extending life). Respondents felt they had no control over AI's development, citing the power of corporations or government, or versions of technological determinism. Negotiating the deployment of AI will require contending with these anxieties.","PeriodicalId":418125,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"94","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314232","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 94

Abstract

How AI is perceived by the public can have significant impact on how it is developed, deployed and regulated. Some commentators argue that perceptions are currently distorted or extreme. This paper discusses the results of a nationally representative survey of the UK population on their perceptions of AI. The survey solicited responses to eight common narratives about AI (four optimistic, four pessimistic), plus views on what AI is, how likely it is to impact in respondents' lifetimes, and whether they can influence it. 42% of respondents offered a plausible definition of AI, while 25% thought it meant robots. Of the narratives presented, those associated with automation were best known, followed by the idea that AI would become more powerful than humans. Overall results showed that the most common visions of the impact of AI elicit significant anxiety. Only two of the eight narratives elicited more excitement than concern (AI making life easier, and extending life). Respondents felt they had no control over AI's development, citing the power of corporations or government, or versions of technological determinism. Negotiating the deployment of AI will require contending with these anxieties.
“可怕的机器人”:调查公众对人工智能的反应
公众对人工智能的看法会对其开发、部署和监管方式产生重大影响。一些评论家认为,目前的看法是扭曲的或极端的。本文讨论了英国人口对人工智能的看法的全国代表性调查的结果。该调查征集了关于人工智能的八种常见说法(四种乐观,四种悲观),以及对人工智能是什么、人工智能对受访者一生产生影响的可能性有多大,以及他们是否能够影响人工智能的看法。42%的受访者对人工智能给出了一个合理的定义,而25%的人认为它意味着机器人。在这些观点中,与自动化相关的观点最为人所知,其次是人工智能将变得比人类更强大的观点。总体结果表明,对人工智能影响最常见的看法会引发严重的焦虑。在8个故事中,只有2个故事让人兴奋,而不是担心(AI让生活变得更容易,延长寿命)。受访者认为他们无法控制人工智能的发展,理由是企业或政府的力量,或技术决定论的版本。就人工智能的部署进行谈判,将需要克服这些焦虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信