Daily Arxiv

This is a page that curates AI-related papers published worldwide.
All content here is summarized using Google Gemini and operated on a non-profit basis.
Copyright for each paper belongs to the authors and their institutions; please make sure to credit the source when sharing.

Perception Gaps in Risk, Benefit, and Value Between Experts and Public Challenge Socially Accepted AI

Created by
  • Haebom

Author

Philipp Brauner, Felix Glawe, Gian Luca Liehner, Luisa Vervier, Martina Ziefle

Outline

This study analyzes the gap in perceptions of AI between the general public (1,110 respondents) and AI experts (119 respondents) across 71 scenarios. For scenarios spanning a wide range of fields, including sustainability, healthcare, jobs, social inequality, art, and war, each group assessed the likelihood, risks, benefits, and overall value of AI. The results showed that experts rated AI's potential higher, risks lower, benefits higher, and a more positive attitude than the general public. Furthermore, experts tended to undervalue risks compared to non-experts. This study visually illustrates areas of agreement, such as medical diagnosis and criminal use, and areas of disagreement, such as legal judgments and political decision-making, highlighting the importance of understanding and addressing the gap in perception between developers and the public to align AI development with societal priorities.

Takeaways, Limitations

Takeaways:
By empirically demonstrating the gap in AI perception between AI experts and the general public, we provide a foundation for developing value-sensitive AI governance and trust-building strategies.
We present various perspectives on the social impact of AI and suggest policy intervention directions to achieve social consensus.
It emphasizes the importance of communication strategies to address public concerns and build trust during the development and implementation of AI.
It highlights the need for efforts to bridge the gap between AI technology development and social acceptance.
Limitations:
The representativeness of the study participants needs to be reviewed (possibly biased towards certain regions, age groups, etc.).
The selection criteria and specific details of the 71 scenarios were not specified, so generalization may be limited.
There is a lack of in-depth analysis of the causes of these perception differences. Beyond simple perception differences, further research is needed to understand the underlying social and cultural factors.
👍