Why (not) use AI? Analyzing People's Reasoning and Conditions for AI Acceptability
Authors:
Jimin Mun,
Wei Bin Au Yeong,
Wesley Hanwen Deng,
Jana Schaich Borg,
Maarten Sap
Abstract:
In recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the need to incorporate lay-people's input into the governance and acceptability assessment of AI usage. However, how and why people judge acceptability of different AI use cases remains under-explored, despite it being crucial towards understanding and addressing potential sources of disagreement. In this work, we investigate the demographi…
▽ More
In recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the need to incorporate lay-people's input into the governance and acceptability assessment of AI usage. However, how and why people judge acceptability of different AI use cases remains under-explored, despite it being crucial towards understanding and addressing potential sources of disagreement. In this work, we investigate the demographic and reasoning factors that influence people's judgments about AI's development via a survey administered to demographically diverse participants (N=197). As a way to probe into these decision factors as well as inherent variations of perceptions across use cases, we consider ten distinct labor-replacement (e.g., Lawyer AI) and personal health (e.g., Digital Medical Advice AI) AI use cases. We explore the relationships between participants' judgments and their rationales such as reasoning approaches (cost-benefit reasoning vs. rule-based). Our empirical findings reveal a number of factors that influence acceptance. We find lower acceptance of labor-replacement usage over personal health, significant influence of demographics factors such as gender, employment, education, and AI literacy level, and prevalence of rule-based reasoning for unacceptable use cases. Moreover, we observe unified reasoning type (e.g., cost-benefit reasoning) leading to higher agreement. Based on these findings, we discuss the key implications towards understanding and mitigating disagreements on the acceptability of AI use cases to collaboratively build consensus.
△ Less
Submitted 30 May, 2025; v1 submitted 11 February, 2025;
originally announced February 2025.
ROME: Evaluating Pre-trained Vision-Language Models on Reasoning beyond Visual Common Sense
Authors:
Kankan Zhou,
Eason Lai,
Wei Bin Au Yeong,
Kyriakos Mouratidis,
Jing Jiang
Abstract:
Humans possess a strong capability for reasoning beyond common sense. For example, given an unconventional image of a goldfish laying on the table next to an empty fishbowl, a human would effortlessly determine that the fish is not inside the fishbowl. The case, however, may be different for a vision-language model, whose reasoning could gravitate towards the common scenario that the fish is insid…
▽ More
Humans possess a strong capability for reasoning beyond common sense. For example, given an unconventional image of a goldfish laying on the table next to an empty fishbowl, a human would effortlessly determine that the fish is not inside the fishbowl. The case, however, may be different for a vision-language model, whose reasoning could gravitate towards the common scenario that the fish is inside the bowl, despite the visual input. In this paper, we introduce a novel probing dataset named ROME (reasoning beyond commonsense knowledge) to evaluate whether the state-of-the-art pre-trained vision-language models have the reasoning capability to correctly interpret counter-intuitive content. ROME contains images that defy commonsense knowledge with regards to color, shape, material, size and positional relation. Experiments on the state-of-the-art pre-trained vision-language models reveal that most of these models are still largely incapable of interpreting counter-intuitive scenarios. We hope that ROME will spur further investigations on reasoning beyond commonsense knowledge in vision-language research.
△ Less
Submitted 30 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
