Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits

Overview

• General purpose AI like ChatGPT has made it easier for the public to use and benefit from AI.
• However, AI development and governance are still largely controlled by a few entities, and the rapid pace of progress raises concerns about comprehensive risk assessment.
• To address this, the researchers introduce PARTICIP-AI, a framework that allows laypeople to speculate on and assess the impacts of AI use cases.
• This aims to inform more democratic AI development and governance.

Plain English Explanation

The paper discusses how the rise of general purpose AI systems like ChatGPT has made it easier for the public to access and use AI technology. However, the researchers note that the development and governance of AI still remains largely in the hands of a few organizations, and the rapid pace of AI progress is outpacing a comprehensive assessment of the risks involved.

To address this, the researchers have developed a framework called PARTICIP-AI, which is designed to allow regular people (or "laypeople") to speculate on and assess the potential impacts of different AI use cases. The goal is to gather more diverse public input on AI development, which can then inform more democratic and inclusive approaches to AI governance.

The researchers ran a medium-scale study using the PARTICIP-AI framework, gathering input from 295 participants with diverse backgrounds. Their analysis of the results shows that participants' ideas for AI applications tended to focus on personal life and societal impacts, rather than the business applications that currently dominate AI development. The participants also surfaced a wide range of potential harms from AI, beyond just the concerns identified by AI experts.

Importantly, the researchers found that participants' perceptions of the negative impacts of

developing certain AI use cases were a key factor in whether they thought those use cases should be developed at all. This highlights laypeople's concerns about over-reliance on technological solutions ("techno-solutionism").

Overall, the researchers argue that frameworks like PARTICIP-AI can help guide more democratic and inclusive approaches to AI development and governance, by incorporating a broader range of public perspectives and concerns.

Technical Explanation

The paper introduces PARTICIP-AI, a framework designed to enable laypeople to speculate on and assess the impacts of potential AI use cases. The key elements of the framework include:

1. Collecting Use Cases: Participants are asked to propose AI use cases across different domains (e.g., personal, societal, business).

2. Risk Assessment: Participants assess the potential benefits and harms of each use case, considering scenarios where the use case is both developed and not developed.

3. Choice on Development: Based on their risk assessment, participants make a concluding choice on whether the use case should be developed.

The researchers conducted a medium-scale study with 295 demographically diverse participants using the PARTICIP-AI framework. Their analysis of the results revealed several key insights:

• Application Focus: Participants' proposed AI use cases tended to focus on personal life and societal applications, rather than the business-oriented applications that currently dominate AI development.

• Diverse Harms: Participants surfaced a wide range of potential harms from AI, including distrust in AI systems and institutions, which complemented the concerns identified by AI experts.

• Impact of Non-Development: Participants' perceptions of the negative impacts of

  developing certain AI use cases were a significant predictor of their judgments on whether those use cases should be developed, highlighting concerns about "techno-solutionism."

Critical Analysis

The researchers acknowledge that their study was limited in scale and scope, and they call for further research to validate and expand upon their findings. Additionally, they note that the PARTICIP-AI framework itself may have inherent biases or limitations that could influence the perspectives gathered.

One potential concern is the reliance on participant-generated use cases, which may not fully capture the breadth of AI applications being developed or considered. There may be value in also incorporating researcher-generated use cases to ensure a more comprehensive assessment.

Furthermore, the study's focus on laypeople's perspectives raises questions about how to balance public input with the expertise of AI developers and researchers. Integrating these different perspectives in a constructive way will be a key challenge in moving towards more democratic AI governance.

Conclusion

The paper presents PARTICIP-AI as a promising approach for incorporating broader public input into the development and governance of general purpose AI systems. The researchers' findings suggest that laypeople have distinct perspectives and concerns about AI that may not be adequately addressed by current AI development practices.

By enabling more participatory and democratic processes around AI, frameworks like PARTICIP-AI have the potential to shape AI development in ways that better align with public values and priorities. This could lead to AI systems that are more responsive to the needs and concerns of diverse communities, ultimately resulting in more ethical and beneficial AI for society as a whole.