Show simple item record

[journal article]

dc.contributor.authorBrauner, Philippde
dc.contributor.authorHick, Alexanderde
dc.contributor.authorPhilipsen, Ralfde
dc.contributor.authorZiefle, Martinade
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-30T11:23:21Z
dc.date.available2025-01-30T11:23:21Z
dc.date.issued2023de
dc.identifier.issn2624-9898de
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/99521
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: 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.de
dc.languageende
dc.subject.ddcTechnik, Technologiede
dc.subject.ddcTechnology (Applied sciences)en
dc.subject.ddcSoziologie, Anthropologiede
dc.subject.ddcSociology & anthropologyen
dc.subject.otheraffect heuristic; public perception; user diversity; mental models; technology acceptance; responsible research and innovation (RRI); collingridge dilemma; Interpersonales Vertrauen (KUSIV3) (ZIS 37)de
dc.titleWhat does the public think about artificial intelligence? A criticality map to understand bias in the public perception of AIde
dc.description.reviewbegutachtet (peer reviewed)de
dc.description.reviewpeer revieweden
dc.source.journalFrontiers in Computer Science
dc.source.volume5de
dc.publisher.countryCHEde
dc.subject.classozTechnikfolgenabschätzungde
dc.subject.classozTechnology Assessmenten
dc.subject.classozWissenschaftssoziologie, Wissenschaftsforschung, Technikforschung, Techniksoziologiede
dc.subject.classozSociology of Science, Sociology of Technology, Research on Science and Technologyen
dc.subject.thesozkünstliche Intelligenzde
dc.subject.thesozartificial intelligenceen
dc.subject.thesozVertrauende
dc.subject.thesozconfidenceen
dc.subject.thesozBenutzerde
dc.subject.thesozuseren
dc.subject.thesozneue Technologiede
dc.subject.thesoznew technologyen
dc.subject.thesozAkzeptanzde
dc.subject.thesozacceptanceen
dc.subject.thesozForschungde
dc.subject.thesozresearchen
dc.subject.thesozRisikoabschätzungde
dc.subject.thesozrisk assessmenten
dc.subject.thesozInnovationde
dc.subject.thesozinnovationen
dc.subject.thesozWahrnehmungde
dc.subject.thesozperceptionen
dc.subject.thesozBundesrepublik Deutschlandde
dc.subject.thesozFederal Republic of Germanyen
dc.subject.thesozEinstellungde
dc.subject.thesozattitudeen
dc.identifier.urnurn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-99521-9
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Namensnennung 4.0de
dc.rights.licenceCreative Commons - Attribution 4.0en
ssoar.contributor.institutionFDBde
internal.statusformal und inhaltlich fertig erschlossende
internal.identifier.thesoz10043031
internal.identifier.thesoz10061508
internal.identifier.thesoz10035815
internal.identifier.thesoz10053171
internal.identifier.thesoz10035015
internal.identifier.thesoz10037018
internal.identifier.thesoz10056789
internal.identifier.thesoz10047538
internal.identifier.thesoz10040719
internal.identifier.thesoz10037571
internal.identifier.thesoz10036125
dc.type.stockarticlede
dc.type.documentZeitschriftenartikelde
dc.type.documentjournal articleen
dc.source.pageinfo1-12de
internal.identifier.classoz20800
internal.identifier.classoz10220
internal.identifier.journal3261
internal.identifier.document32
internal.identifier.ddc600
internal.identifier.ddc301
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2023.1113903de
dc.description.pubstatusVeröffentlichungsversionde
dc.description.pubstatusPublished Versionen
internal.identifier.licence16
internal.identifier.pubstatus1
internal.identifier.review1
internal.pdf.validfalse
internal.pdf.wellformedtrue
internal.pdf.encryptedfalse


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record