An official website of the United States government
Abstract As artificial intelligence (AI) grows in popularity and importance—both as a domain within broader computing research and in society at large—increasing focus will need to be paid to the ethical governance of this emerging technology. The attitudes and competencies with respect to AI ethics and policy among post-secondary students studying computer science (CS) are of particular interest, as many of these students will go on to play key roles in the development and deployment of future AI innovations. Despite this population of computer scientists being at the forefront of learning about and using AI tools, their attitudes towards AI remain understudied in the literature. In an effort to begin to close this gap, in fall 2024 we fielded a survey ($$n=117$$) to undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in CS courses at a large public university in the United States to assess their attitudes towards the nascent fields of AI ethics and policy. Additionally, we conducted one-on-one follow-up interviews with 13 students to elicit more in-depth responses on topics such as the use of AI tools in the classroom, ethical impacts of AI, and government regulation of AI. In this paper, we describe the findings of our exploratory study, drawing parallels and contrasts to broader public opinion polling in the United States. We conclude by evaluating the implications of CS student attitudes on the future of AI education and governance.
more »
« less
What governs attitudes toward artificial intelligence adoption and governance?
Abstract Designing effective and inclusive governance and public communication strategies for artificial intelligence (AI) requires understanding how stakeholders reason about its use and governance. We examine underlying factors and mechanisms that drive attitudes toward the use and governance of AI across six policy-relevant applications using structural equation modeling and surveys of both US adults (N = 3,524) and technology workers enrolled in an online computer science master’s degree program (N = 425). We find that the cultural values of individualism, egalitarianism, general risk aversion, and techno-skepticism are important drivers of AI attitudes. Perceived benefit drives attitudes toward AI use but not its governance. Experts hold more nuanced views than the public and are more supportive of AI use but not its regulation. Drawing on these findings, we discuss challenges and opportunities for participatory AI governance, and we recommend that trustworthy AI governance be emphasized as strongly as trustworthy AI.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2107455
- PAR ID:
- 10375944
- Publisher / Repository:
- Oxford University Press
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Science and Public Policy
- Volume:
- 50
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 0302-3427
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 161-176
- Size(s):
- p. 161-176
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Automatic emotion recognition (ER)-enabled wellbeing interventions use ER algorithms to infer the emotions of a data subject (i.e., a person about whom data is collected or processed to enable ER) based on data generated from their online interactions, such as social media activity, and intervene accordingly. The potential commercial applications of this technology are widely acknowledged, particularly in the context of social media. Yet, little is known about data subjects' conceptualizations of and attitudes toward automatic ER-enabled wellbeing interventions. To address this gap, we interviewed 13 US adult social media data subjects regarding social media-based automatic ER-enabled wellbeing interventions. We found that participants' attitudes toward automatic ER-enabled wellbeing interventions were predominantly negative. Negative attitudes were largely shaped by how participants compared their conceptualizations of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to the humans that traditionally deliver wellbeing support. Comparisons between AI and human wellbeing interventions were based upon human attributes participants doubted AI could hold: 1) helpfulness and authentic care; 2) personal and professional expertise; 3) morality; and 4) benevolence through shared humanity. In some cases, participants' attitudes toward automatic ER-enabled wellbeing interventions shifted when participants conceptualized automatic ER-enabled wellbeing interventions' impact on others, rather than themselves. Though with reluctance, a minority of participants held more positive attitudes toward their conceptualizations of automatic ER-enabled wellbeing interventions, citing their potential to benefit others: 1) by supporting academic research; 2) by increasing access to wellbeing support; and 3) through egregious harm prevention. However, most participants anticipated harms associated with their conceptualizations of automatic ER-enabled wellbeing interventions for others, such as re-traumatization, the spread of inaccurate health information, inappropriate surveillance, and interventions informed by inaccurate predictions. Lastly, while participants had qualms about automatic ER-enabled wellbeing interventions, we identified three development and delivery qualities of automatic ER-enabled wellbeing interventions upon which their attitudes toward them depended: 1) accuracy; 2) contextual sensitivity; and 3) positive outcome. Our study is not motivated to make normative statements about whether or how automatic ER-enabled wellbeing interventions should exist, but to center voices of the data subjects affected by this technology. We argue for the inclusion of data subjects in the development of requirements for ethical and trustworthy ER applications. To that end, we discuss ethical, social, and policy implications of our findings, suggesting that automatic ER-enabled wellbeing interventions imagined by participants are incompatible with aims to promote trustworthy, socially aware, and responsible AI technologies in the current practical and regulatory landscape in the US.more » « less
-
Mahmoud, Ali B. (Ed.)Billions of dollars are being invested into developing medical artificial intelligence (AI) systems and yet public opinion of AI in the medical field seems to be mixed. Although high expectations for the future of medical AI do exist in the American public, anxiety and uncertainty about what it can do and how it works is widespread. Continuing evaluation of public opinion on AI in healthcare is necessary to ensure alignment between patient attitudes and the technologies adopted. We conducted a representative-sample survey (total N = 203) to measure the trust of the American public towards medical AI. Primarily, we contrasted preferences for AI and human professionals to be medical decision-makers. Additionally, we measured expectations for the impact and use of medical AI in the future. We present four noteworthy results: (1) The general public strongly prefers human medical professionals make medical decisions, while at the same time believing they are more likely to make culturally biased decisions than AI. (2) The general public is more comfortable with a human reading their medical records than an AI, both now and “100 years from now.” (3) The general public is nearly evenly split between those who would trust their own doctor to use AI and those who would not. (4) Respondents expect AI will improve medical treatment but more so in the distant future than immediately.more » « less
-
Emerging Distributed AI systems are revolutionizing big data computing and data processing capabilities with growing economic and societal impact. However, recent studies have identified new attack surfaces and risks caused by security, privacy, and fairness issues in AI systems. In this paper, we review representative techniques, algorithms, and theoretical foundations for trustworthy distributed AI through robustness guarantee, privacy protection, and fairness awareness in distributed learning. We first provide a brief overview of alternative architectures for distributed learning, discuss inherent vulnerabilities for security, privacy, and fairness of AI algorithms in distributed learning, and analyze why these problems are present in distributed learning regardless of specific architectures. Then we provide a unique taxonomy of countermeasures for trustworthy distributed AI, covering (1) robustness to evasion attacks and irregular queries at inference, and robustness to poisoning attacks, Byzantine attacks, and irregular data distribution during training; (2) privacy protection during distributed learning and model inference at deployment; and (3) AI fairness and governance with respect to both data and models. We conclude with a discussion on open challenges and future research directions toward trustworthy distributed AI, such as the need for trustworthy AI policy guidelines, the AI responsibility-utility co-design, and incentives and compliance.more » « less
-
There is a critical need for community engagement in the process of adopting artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in public health. Public health practitioners and researchers have historically innovated in areas like vaccination and sanitation but have been slower in adopting emerging technologies such as generative AI. However, with increasingly complex funding, programming, and research requirements, the field now faces a pivotal moment to enhance its agility and responsiveness to evolving health challenges. Participatory methods and community engagement are key components of many current public health programs and research. The field of public health is well positioned to ensure community engagement is part of AI technologies applied to population health issues. Without such engagement, the adoption of these technologies in public health may exclude significant portions of the population, particularly those with the fewest resources, with the potential to exacerbate health inequities. Risks to privacy and perpetuation of bias are more likely to be avoided if AI technologies in public health are designed with knowledge of community engagement, existing health disparities, and strategies for improving equity. This viewpoint proposes a multifaceted approach to ensure safer and more effective integration of AI in public health with the following call to action: (1) include the basics of AI technology in public health training and professional development; (2) use a community engagement approach to co-design AI technologies in public health; and (3) introduce governance and best practice mechanisms that can guide the use of AI in public health to prevent or mitigate potential harms. These actions will support the application of AI to varied public health domains through a framework for more transparent, responsive, and equitable use of this evolving technology, augmenting the work of public health practitioners and researchers to improve health outcomes while minimizing risks and unintended consequences.more » « less
