-
Public Opinion and The Rise of Digital Minds: Perceived Risk, Trust, and Regulation Support
Authors:
Justin B. Bullock,
Janet V. T. Pauketat,
Hsini Huang,
Yi-Fan Wang,
Jacy Reese Anthis
Abstract:
Governance institutions must respond to societal risks, including those posed by generative AI. This study empirically examines how public trust in institutions and AI technologies, along with perceived risks, shape preferences for AI regulation. Using the nationally representative 2023 Artificial Intelligence, Morality, and Sentience (AIMS) survey, we assess trust in government, AI companies, and…
▽ More
Governance institutions must respond to societal risks, including those posed by generative AI. This study empirically examines how public trust in institutions and AI technologies, along with perceived risks, shape preferences for AI regulation. Using the nationally representative 2023 Artificial Intelligence, Morality, and Sentience (AIMS) survey, we assess trust in government, AI companies, and AI technologies, as well as public support for regulatory measures such as slowing AI development or outright bans on advanced AI. Our findings reveal broad public support for AI regulation, with risk perception playing a significant role in shaping policy preferences. Individuals with higher trust in government favor regulation, while those with greater trust in AI companies and AI technologies are less inclined to support restrictions. Trust in government and perceived risks significantly predict preferences for both soft (e.g., slowing development) and strong (e.g., banning AI systems) regulatory interventions. These results highlight the importance of public opinion in AI governance. As AI capabilities advance, effective regulation will require balancing public concerns about risks with trust in institutions. This study provides a foundational empirical baseline for policymakers navigating AI governance and underscores the need for further research into public trust, risk perception, and regulatory strategies in the evolving AI landscape.
△ Less
Submitted 30 April, 2025;
originally announced April 2025.
-
The AI Double Standard: Humans Judge All AIs for the Actions of One
Authors:
Aikaterina Manoli,
Janet V. T. Pauketat,
Jacy Reese Anthis
Abstract:
Robots and other artificial intelligence (AI) systems are widely perceived as moral agents responsible for their actions. As AI proliferates, these perceptions may become entangled via the moral spillover of attitudes towards one AI to attitudes towards other AIs. We tested how the seemingly harmful and immoral actions of an AI or human agent spill over to attitudes towards other AIs or humans in…
▽ More
Robots and other artificial intelligence (AI) systems are widely perceived as moral agents responsible for their actions. As AI proliferates, these perceptions may become entangled via the moral spillover of attitudes towards one AI to attitudes towards other AIs. We tested how the seemingly harmful and immoral actions of an AI or human agent spill over to attitudes towards other AIs or humans in two preregistered experiments. In Study 1 (N = 720), we established the moral spillover effect in human-AI interaction by showing that immoral actions increased attributions of negative moral agency (i.e., acting immorally) and decreased attributions of positive moral agency (i.e., acting morally) and moral patiency (i.e., deserving moral concern) to both the agent (a chatbot or human assistant) and the group to which they belong (all chatbot or human assistants). There was no significant difference in the spillover effects between the AI and human contexts. In Study 2 (N = 684), we tested whether spillover persisted when the agent was individuated with a name and described as an AI or human, rather than specifically as a chatbot or personal assistant. We found that spillover persisted in the AI context but not in the human context, possibly because AIs were perceived as more homogeneous due to their outgroup status relative to humans. This asymmetry suggests a double standard whereby AIs are judged more harshly than humans when one agent morally transgresses. With the proliferation of diverse, autonomous AI systems, HCI research and design should account for the fact that experiences with one AI could easily generalize to perceptions of all AIs and negative HCI outcomes, such as reduced trust.
△ Less
Submitted 8 December, 2024;
originally announced December 2024.
-
Perceptions of Sentient AI and Other Digital Minds: Evidence from the AI, Morality, and Sentience (AIMS) Survey
Authors:
Jacy Reese Anthis,
Janet V. T. Pauketat,
Ali Ladak,
Aikaterina Manoli
Abstract:
Humans now interact with a variety of digital minds, AI systems that appear to have mental faculties such as reasoning, emotion, and agency, and public figures are discussing the possibility of sentient AI. We present initial results from 2021 and 2023 for the nationally representative AI, Morality, and Sentience (AIMS) survey (N = 3,500). Mind perception and moral concern for AI welfare were surp…
▽ More
Humans now interact with a variety of digital minds, AI systems that appear to have mental faculties such as reasoning, emotion, and agency, and public figures are discussing the possibility of sentient AI. We present initial results from 2021 and 2023 for the nationally representative AI, Morality, and Sentience (AIMS) survey (N = 3,500). Mind perception and moral concern for AI welfare were surprisingly high and significantly increased: in 2023, one in five U.S. adults believed some AI systems are currently sentient, and 38% supported legal rights for sentient AI. People became more opposed to building digital minds: in 2023, 63% supported banning smarter-than-human AI, and 69% supported banning sentient AI. The median 2023 forecast was that sentient AI would arrive in just five years. The development of safe and beneficial AI requires not just technical study but understanding the complex ways in which humans perceive and coexist with digital minds.
△ Less
Submitted 10 March, 2025; v1 submitted 11 July, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
