Are skepticism and moderation dominating attitudes toward AI-based technologies?

IF 0.9 4区 经济学 Q3 ECONOMICS
Simona-Vasilica Oprea, Ionut Nica, Adela Bâra, Irina-Alexandra Georgescu
{"title":"Are skepticism and moderation dominating attitudes toward AI-based technologies?","authors":"Simona-Vasilica Oprea,&nbsp;Ionut Nica,&nbsp;Adela Bâra,&nbsp;Irina-Alexandra Georgescu","doi":"10.1111/ajes.12565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>AI advancements are poised to substantially modify human abilities in the foreseeable future. They include the integration of Brain–Computer Interfaces (BCIs) to augment cognitive functions, the application of gene editing, and the utilization of AI-powered robotic exoskeletons to enhance physical strength. This study employs a comprehensive analytical framework combining factor analysis, clustering, ANOVA, and logistic regression to investigate public attitudes toward these transformative technologies. Our findings reveal three distinct clusters of public opinion reflecting varying optimism and concern toward AI technologies. Cluster 1 (1574 participants) held a positive view with high excitement while Cluster 2 (1334 participants) showed a balanced stance. Cluster 3 (2199 participants) expressed heightened concern despite some excitement. Notably, regional disparities, particularly between urban and rural participants, emerge as a prominent factor influencing these attitudes (ANOVA, <i>F</i> = 15.2, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Furthermore, logistic regression identifies key influencers of public perception, highlighting the significant roles played by religion and regional factors. The implications of these findings extend beyond understanding public sentiment. They underscore the need for informed policies that promote education and awareness about AI technologies, address ethical concerns, and engage the public in decision-making processes. As society navigates this transformative technological landscape, a nuanced understanding of public attitudes becomes paramount, guiding ethical regulation, innovation, and public engagement strategies. This study provides valuable insights into the intricate dynamics surrounding AI acceptance and highlights the importance of adapting measures to evolving perceptions and attitudes among the general public.</p>","PeriodicalId":47133,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Economics and Sociology","volume":"83 3","pages":"567-607"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Economics and Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajes.12565","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

AI advancements are poised to substantially modify human abilities in the foreseeable future. They include the integration of Brain–Computer Interfaces (BCIs) to augment cognitive functions, the application of gene editing, and the utilization of AI-powered robotic exoskeletons to enhance physical strength. This study employs a comprehensive analytical framework combining factor analysis, clustering, ANOVA, and logistic regression to investigate public attitudes toward these transformative technologies. Our findings reveal three distinct clusters of public opinion reflecting varying optimism and concern toward AI technologies. Cluster 1 (1574 participants) held a positive view with high excitement while Cluster 2 (1334 participants) showed a balanced stance. Cluster 3 (2199 participants) expressed heightened concern despite some excitement. Notably, regional disparities, particularly between urban and rural participants, emerge as a prominent factor influencing these attitudes (ANOVA, F = 15.2, p < 0.001). Furthermore, logistic regression identifies key influencers of public perception, highlighting the significant roles played by religion and regional factors. The implications of these findings extend beyond understanding public sentiment. They underscore the need for informed policies that promote education and awareness about AI technologies, address ethical concerns, and engage the public in decision-making processes. As society navigates this transformative technological landscape, a nuanced understanding of public attitudes becomes paramount, guiding ethical regulation, innovation, and public engagement strategies. This study provides valuable insights into the intricate dynamics surrounding AI acceptance and highlights the importance of adapting measures to evolving perceptions and attitudes among the general public.

对人工智能技术的态度是否以怀疑和节制为主?
在可预见的未来,人工智能的进步将大大改变人类的能力。这些技术包括整合脑机接口(BCI)以增强认知功能、应用基因编辑以及利用人工智能驱动的机器人外骨骼增强体力。本研究采用了一个综合分析框架,将因子分析、聚类分析、方差分析和逻辑回归结合起来,调查公众对这些变革性技术的态度。我们的研究结果显示了三个不同的公众舆论群组,反映了对人工智能技术不同的乐观和担忧态度。群组 1(1574 名参与者)对人工智能技术持积极态度,兴奋度很高,而群组 2(1334 名参与者)则表现出一种平衡的立场。第 3 组(2199 位参与者)尽管有些兴奋,但也表示了高度的担忧。值得注意的是,地区差异,特别是城乡参与者之间的差异,成为影响这些态度的一个突出因素(方差分析,F = 15.2,p < 0.001)。此外,逻辑回归确定了公众看法的主要影响因素,突出了宗教和地区因素的重要作用。这些发现的意义不仅仅在于了解公众情绪。它们强调了制定知情政策的必要性,以促进有关人工智能技术的教育和认识,解决伦理问题,并让公众参与决策过程。随着社会在这一变革性的技术领域中不断前行,对公众态度的细致入微的了解变得至关重要,它将为伦理监管、创新和公众参与战略提供指导。本研究为了解人工智能接受度的复杂动态提供了宝贵的见解,并强调了调整措施以适应公众不断变化的观念和态度的重要性。
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
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Economics and Sociology (AJES) was founded in 1941, with support from the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, to encourage the development of transdisciplinary solutions to social problems. In the introduction to the first issue, John Dewey observed that “the hostile state of the world and the intellectual division that has been built up in so-called ‘social science,’ are … reflections and expressions of the same fundamental causes.” Dewey commended this journal for its intention to promote “synthesis in the social field.” Dewey wrote those words almost six decades after the social science associations split off from the American Historical Association in pursuit of value-free knowledge derived from specialized disciplines. Since he wrote them, academic or disciplinary specialization has become even more pronounced. Multi-disciplinary work is superficially extolled in major universities, but practices and incentives still favor highly specialized work. The result is that academia has become a bastion of analytic excellence, breaking phenomena into components for intensive investigation, but it contributes little synthetic or holistic understanding that can aid society in finding solutions to contemporary problems. Analytic work remains important, but in response to the current lop-sided emphasis on specialization, the board of AJES has decided to return to its roots by emphasizing a more integrated and practical approach to knowledge.
×
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