IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v51y2024i5p1004-1013..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Societal guardrails for AI? Perspectives on what we know about public opinion on artificial intelligence

Author

Listed:
  • Dayeon Eom
  • Todd Newman
  • Dominique Brossard
  • Dietram A Scheufele

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) not only holds immense potential for improving quality of life but also creates complex ethical, legal, and societal challenges. AI has gained significant attention recently, particularly by introducing ChatGPT and other emerging applications. This paper offers a comprehensive overview of public opinion trends on AI, drawing from fifteen surveys conducted in the USA over the past 4 years. The findings reveal a divided American public regarding AI’s applications. Americans generally call for more regulation and government oversight, expressing a need for increased measures before fully embracing AI. While specific AI applications, such as skin cancer screening, have been welcomed, most Americans emphasize the importance of addressing societal concerns such as racial bias and inequities before the widespread implementation of AI. The evolving landscape of AI necessitates ongoing monitoring of public sentiment and the consideration of societal implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Dayeon Eom & Todd Newman & Dominique Brossard & Dietram A Scheufele, 2024. "Societal guardrails for AI? Perspectives on what we know about public opinion on artificial intelligence," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(5), pages 1004-1013.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:51:y:2024:i:5:p:1004-1013.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scae041
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:51:y:2024:i:5:p:1004-1013.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.