CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 145Ethics and Social Impacts of AIRisk Perception and ManagementScience Education and Perceptions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What does the public think about artificial intelligence?—A criticality map to understand bias in the public perception of AI

Open access
Brauner, Philipp, Hick, Alexander, Philipsen, Ralf, Ziefle, Martina·2023·Frontiers in Computer Science
DOI 10.3389/fcomp.2023.1113903
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Introduction: Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become ubiquitous in medicine, business, manufacturing and transportation, and is entering our personal lives. Public perceptions of AI are often shaped either by admiration for its benefits and possibilities, or by uncertainties, potential threats and fears about this opaque and perceived as mysterious technology. Understanding the public perception of AI, as well as its requirements and attributions, is essential for responsible research and innovation and enables aligning the development and governance of future AI systems with individual and societal needs. Methods: To contribute to this understanding, we asked 122 participants in Germany how they perceived 38 statements about artificial intelligence in different contexts (personal, economic, industrial, social, cultural, health). We assessed their personal evaluation and the perceived likelihood of these aspects becoming reality. Results: We visualized the responses in a criticality map that allows the identification of issues that require particular attention from research and policy-making. The results show that the perceived evaluation and the perceived expectations differ considerably between the domains. The aspect perceived as most critical is the fear of cybersecurity threats, which is seen as highly likely and least liked. Discussion: The diversity of users influenced the evaluation: People with lower trust rated the impact of AI as more positive but less likely. Compared to people with higher trust, they consider certain features and consequences of AI to be more desirable, but they think the impact of AI will be smaller. We conclude that AI is still a “black box” for many. Neither the opportunities nor the risks can yet be adequately assessed, which can lead to biased and irrational control beliefs in the public perception of AI. The article concludes with guidelines for promoting AI literacy to facilitate informed decision-making.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fcomp.2023.1113903

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 74 references

1 of the 74 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Language models are few-shot learners,18771901 BrownT. MannB. RyderN. SubbiahM. KaplanJ. D. DhariwalP. LarochelleH. RanzatoM. HadsellR. BalcanM. F. LinH. 35785085Curran Associates, Inc.Advances in neural information processing systems2020
  2. Bughin, 2018, Notes from the AI frontier: modeling the impact of AI on the world economy, McKinsey Glob. Inst.
  3. Cambridge dictionary. Artificial Intelligence2022
  4. Dienes, 2008, Understanding Psychology as a Science-An Introduction to Scientific and Statistical Inference, 1st Edn
  5. Using matchboxes to teach the basics of machine learning: An analysis of (possible) misconceptions,2529 MarxE. LeonhardtT. BaberowskiD. BergnerN. KinnairdK. M. SteinbachP. GuhrO. Proceedings of the Second Teaching Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence Workshop Proceedings of Machine Learning Research2022
  6. McCarthy, 2006, A proposal for the dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence (August 31, 1955), AI Mag., 27, 12, 10.1609/aimag.v27i4.1904 · DOI
  7. Russell, 2009, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 3rd Edn
  8. Wilkowska, 2018, Rethinking technology development for older adults: a responsible research and innovation duty,, Aging, Technology and Health, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–145 of 145

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Brauner, P., Hick, A., Philipsen, R., & Ziefle, M.
Affiliations
RWTH Aachen University (DE)
Corresponding author
Brauner, Philipp
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Computer Science
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2023-03-16
Volume
5
ISSN
2624-9898 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fcomp.2023.1113903
OpenAlex
W4327620114
Cited by
143
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 6
FWCI
35.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Computer Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Science Education and Perceptions
Keywords
public perception of AI, perceived bias, trust in AI, AI literacy, cyber threats, control beliefs, responsible research and innovation, AI governance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review