Implications for Governance in Public Perceptions of Societal-scale AI Risks
2406.06199
0
0
🤖
Abstract
Amid growing concerns over AI's societal risks--ranging from civilizational collapse to misinformation and systemic bias--this study explores the perceptions of AI experts and the general US registered voters on the likelihood and impact of 18 specific AI risks, alongside their policy preferences for managing these risks. While both groups favor international oversight over national or corporate governance, our survey reveals a discrepancy: voters perceive AI risks as both more likely and more impactful than experts, and also advocate for slower AI development. Specifically, our findings indicate that policy interventions may best assuage collective concerns if they attempt to more carefully balance mitigation efforts across all classes of societal-scale risks, effectively nullifying the near-vs-long-term debate over AI risks. More broadly, our results will serve not only to enable more substantive policy discussions for preventing and mitigating AI risks, but also to underscore the challenge of consensus building for effective policy implementation.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This study explores the perceptions of AI experts and the general US registered voters on the likelihood and impact of 18 specific AI risks, as well as their policy preferences for managing these risks.
- The study finds a discrepancy between the two groups - voters perceive AI risks as both more likely and more impactful than experts, and also advocate for slower AI development.
- The findings suggest that policy interventions may need to carefully balance mitigation efforts across all classes of societal-scale risks, rather than focusing only on near-term or long-term concerns.
Plain English Explanation
As artificial intelligence (AI) technology continues to advance, there are growing concerns about the potential societal risks it poses - from the collapse of civilization to the spread of misinformation and systemic bias. This study set out to understand how AI experts and the general public in the US view these risks, and what they think should be done to manage them.
The researchers surveyed both AI experts and a representative sample of registered US voters. They asked about the likelihood and potential impact of 18 specific AI-related risks. Interestingly, the two groups had quite different perceptions. Voters saw these risks as both more likely to occur and more impactful than the experts did.
The study also looked at the policy preferences of each group. Both experts and voters favored international oversight and governance of AI, rather than leaving it solely in the hands of national governments or private companies. However, the voters advocated for a slower pace of AI development compared to the experts.
The researchers suggest that the best policy approach may be to try to address all types of societal risks from AI, rather than just focusing on either the near-term or long-term concerns. This could help bridge the gap between how experts and the public view these issues, and lead to more effective policymaking.
Overall, this research highlights the challenge of building consensus around how to manage the risks of advanced AI systems. Understanding the differing perspectives of experts and the public will be crucial as we work to shape the governance and development of these powerful technologies.
Technical Explanation
The study used a survey methodology to assess perceptions of AI risks and policy preferences among two key stakeholder groups: AI experts and a representative sample of registered US voters.
The survey instrument asked respondents to evaluate the likelihood and impact of 18 specific AI risks, ranging from short-term issues like algorithmic bias to long-term concerns like unaligned superintelligence. Respondents were also asked about their preferred governance approaches, such as international oversight, national regulation, or corporate self-governance.
The results showed clear differences between the AI experts and the general public. Voters perceived the AI risks as being both more likely to occur and more impactful than the experts did. Voters also tended to favor slower development of AI technologies compared to the experts.
Both groups, however, expressed a preference for international oversight and governance mechanisms over national or corporate control of AI [https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/governance-generative-artificial-intelligence-companies].
The researchers argue that these findings suggest policymakers should aim to balance mitigation efforts across the full spectrum of societal-scale AI risks, rather than focusing disproportionately on either near-term or long-term concerns [https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/now-later-lasting-ten-priorities-ai-research, https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/managing-extreme-ai-risks-amid-rapid-progress]. This could help reconcile the divergent perspectives of experts and the public.
Critical Analysis
The study provides valuable insights into the differing perceptions of AI risks and policy preferences between experts and the general public. However, it is important to note some potential limitations and areas for further research.
First, the survey methodology relies on self-reported assessments, which may be subject to biases or incomplete information. It would be useful to complement this with more objective measures of AI risk and impact.
Additionally, the study focuses on a US-based sample, which may not be representative of global views. Expanding the research to other countries and cultures could yield important comparative insights [https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/sociotechnical-implications-generative-artificial-intelligence-information-access].
Finally, the study does not delve deeply into the underlying reasons for the discrepancies between experts and the public. Further investigation into the factors shaping these differing perspectives could help inform more effective communication and policy development strategies.
Conclusion
This study offers valuable empirical evidence on the divergent perceptions of AI risks and policy preferences among AI experts and the general public in the US. The findings suggest that policymakers should strive to balance mitigation efforts across the full spectrum of societal-scale AI risks, rather than focusing narrowly on either near-term or long-term concerns.
Bridging the gap between expert and public views will be crucial as we work to develop effective governance frameworks for advanced AI systems. Continued research and dialogue will be essential to build the consensus necessary for implementing policies that can adequately address the complex societal challenges posed by the rapid progress of artificial intelligence.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🤖
Societal Adaptation to Advanced AI
Jamie Bernardi, Gabriel Mukobi, Hilary Greaves, Lennart Heim, Markus Anderljung
0
0
Existing strategies for managing risks from advanced AI systems often focus on affecting what AI systems are developed and how they diffuse. However, this approach becomes less feasible as the number of developers of advanced AI grows, and impedes beneficial use-cases as well as harmful ones. In response, we urge a complementary approach: increasing societal adaptation to advanced AI, that is, reducing the expected negative impacts from a given level of diffusion of a given AI capability. We introduce a conceptual framework which helps identify adaptive interventions that avoid, defend against and remedy potentially harmful uses of AI systems, illustrated with examples in election manipulation, cyberterrorism, and loss of control to AI decision-makers. We discuss a three-step cycle that society can implement to adapt to AI. Increasing society's ability to implement this cycle builds its resilience to advanced AI. We conclude with concrete recommendations for governments, industry, and third-parties.
5/17/2024
🤖
Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress
Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, Andrew Yao, Dawn Song, Pieter Abbeel, Trevor Darrell, Yuval Noah Harari, Ya-Qin Zhang, Lan Xue, Shai Shalev-Shwartz, Gillian Hadfield, Jeff Clune, Tegan Maharaj, Frank Hutter, At{i}l{i}m Gunec{s} Baydin, Sheila McIlraith, Qiqi Gao, Ashwin Acharya, David Krueger, Anca Dragan, Philip Torr, Stuart Russell, Daniel Kahneman, Jan Brauner, Soren Mindermann
0
0
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is progressing rapidly, and companies are shifting their focus to developing generalist AI systems that can autonomously act and pursue goals. Increases in capabilities and autonomy may soon massively amplify AI's impact, with risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, and an irreversible loss of human control over autonomous AI systems. Although researchers have warned of extreme risks from AI, there is a lack of consensus about how exactly such risks arise, and how to manage them. Society's response, despite promising first steps, is incommensurate with the possibility of rapid, transformative progress that is expected by many experts. AI safety research is lagging. Present governance initiatives lack the mechanisms and institutions to prevent misuse and recklessness, and barely address autonomous systems. In this short consensus paper, we describe extreme risks from upcoming, advanced AI systems. Drawing on lessons learned from other safety-critical technologies, we then outline a comprehensive plan combining technical research and development with proactive, adaptive governance mechanisms for a more commensurate preparation.
5/24/2024
🤖
Now, Later, and Lasting: Ten Priorities for AI Research, Policy, and Practice
Eric Horvitz, Vincent Conitzer, Sheila McIlraith, Peter Stone
0
0
Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) will transform many aspects of our lives and society, bringing immense opportunities but also posing significant risks and challenges. The next several decades may well be a turning point for humanity, comparable to the industrial revolution. We write to share a set of recommendations for moving forward from the perspective of the founder and leaders of the One Hundred Year Study on AI. Launched a decade ago, the project is committed to a perpetual series of studies by multidisciplinary experts to evaluate the immediate, longer-term, and far-reaching effects of AI on people and society, and to make recommendations about AI research, policy, and practice. As we witness new capabilities emerging from neural models, it is crucial that we engage in efforts to advance our scientific understanding of these models and their behaviors. We must address the impact of AI on people and society through technical, social, and sociotechnical lenses, incorporating insights from a diverse range of experts including voices from engineering, social, behavioral, and economic disciplines. By fostering dialogue, collaboration, and action among various stakeholders, we can strategically guide the development and deployment of AI in ways that maximize its potential for contributing to human flourishing. Despite the growing divide in the field between focusing on short-term versus long-term implications, we think both are of critical importance. As Alan Turing, one of the pioneers of AI, wrote in 1950, We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty there that needs to be done. We offer ten recommendations for action that collectively address both the short- and long-term potential impacts of AI technologies.
4/23/2024
🔍
Governance of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Companies
Johannes Schneider, Rene Abraham, Christian Meske
0
0
Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), specifically large language models like ChatGPT, has swiftly entered organizations without adequate governance, posing both opportunities and risks. Despite extensive debates on GenAI's transformative nature and regulatory measures, limited research addresses organizational governance, encompassing technical and business perspectives. Our review paper fills this gap by surveying recent works with the purpose of developing a framework for GenAI governance within companies. This framework outlines the scope, objectives, and governance mechanisms tailored to harness business opportunities as well as mitigate risks associated with GenAI integration. Our research contributes a focused approach to GenAI governance, offering practical insights for companies navigating the challenges of GenAI adoption and highlighting research gaps.
6/11/2024