AI and Human Enhancement: Americans’ Openness Is Tempered by a Range of Concerns

Public views are tied to how these technologies would be used, what constraints would be in place

WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 17, 2022) – As developments in artificial intelligence and human enhancement technologies show the potential to remake American society in the coming decades, a new Pew Research Center survey finds that Americans see promise in the ways these technologies could improve daily life and human abilities. At the same time, public views are also tied to the context of how these technologies would be used, what constraints would be in place, and who would stand to benefit – or lose – if these advances become widespread.

The new report, based on a survey of 10,260 U.S. adults conducted from Nov. 1 to 7, 2021, using the Center’s American Trends Panel, is the first in an ongoing series examining public perceptions of AI and human enhancement technologies and their implications for society. It builds on previous Center analyses of attitudes about emerging scientific and technological developments.

This report specifically looks at a broad arc of six different scientific and technological developments – some in use now, some still emerging. Three are part of the burgeoning array of AI applications: the use of facial recognition technology by police, the use of algorithms by social media companies to find false information on their sites and the development of driverless passenger vehicles.

The other three, often described as types of human enhancements, revolve around developments tied to the convergence of AI, biotechnology, nanotechnology and other fields: computer chip implants in the brain to advance people’s cognitive skills, gene editing to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of developing serious diseases or health conditions, and robotic exoskeletons with a built-in AI system to greatly increase strength for lifting in manual labor jobs.

Fundamentally, caution runs through public views of these AI and human enhancement applications, often centered around concerns about individuals’ autonomy, unintended consequences and the amount of change these developments might bring for humans and society. People think economic disparities might worsen as some advances emerge and that technologies, like facial recognition software, could lead to more surveillance of Black or Hispanic Americans. Americans’ views are varied and, for portions of the public, infused with uncertainty.

The public is far more positive than negative about the widespread use of facial recognition technology by police to monitor crowds and look for people who may have committed a crime: 46% of U.S. adults think this would be a good idea for society, while 27% think this would be a bad idea and another 27% are unsure. By narrower margins, however, more describe the use of computer algorithms by social media companies to find false information on their sites as a good idea rather than bad idea for society (38% vs. 31%), and the pattern is similar for the use of robotic exoskeletons with a built-in AI system to increase strength for manual labor jobs (33% vs. 24%).

By contrast, Americans are much more cautious about a future with widespread use of computer chip implants in the brain to allow people to far more quickly and accurately process information: 56% say this would be a bad idea for society, while just 13% think this would be a good idea. And when it comes to the much-discussed possibility of a future with driverless passenger vehicles in widespread use, more Americans say this would be a bad idea (44%) than a good idea (26%).

Still, uncertainty is among the themes in emerging public views of AI and human enhancement applications. For instance, 42% are not sure how the widespread use of robotic exoskeletons in manual labor jobs would impact society. Similarly, 39% say they are not sure about the potential implications for society if gene editing is widely used to change the DNA of embryos to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of developing serious diseases or health conditions over their lifetime. Ambivalence is another theme in the survey data: 45% say they are equally excited and concerned about the increased use of AI programs in daily life, compared with 37% who say they are more concerned than excited and 18% who say they are more excited than concerned.

Other key findings include:

• Majorities think higher standards should be used in testing the safety of some developing technologies, rather than the standards that are currently in place. For instance, 87% of Americans say that higher standards for testing driverless cars should be in place, rather than using existing standards for passenger cars. And 83% believe the testing of brain chip implants should meet a higher standard than is currently in use to test medical devices. Eight-in-ten Americans say that the testing regime for gene editing to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of serious diseases should be higher than that currently applied to testing medical treatments; 72% think the testing of robotic exoskeletons for manual labor should use higher standards than those currently applied to workplace equipment.

• Sharp partisan divisions anchor people’s views about possible government regulation of these new and developing technologies. Majorities of Republicans and independents who lean to the Republican Party say they are more concerned about government overreach, while majorities of Democrats and Democratic leaners worry more that there will be too little oversight. For example, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say their greater concern is that the government will go too far regulating of the use of robotic exoskeletons for manual labor (67% vs. 33%). Conversely, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say their concern is that government regulation will not go far enough.

• The public is not convinced that certain physical and cognitive enhancements would lead to clear improvements in people’s lives. About a third (32%) of Americans think that robotic exoskeletons with built-in AI systems to increase strength for manual labor would generally lead to improved working conditions. However, 36% think their use would not make much difference and 31% say they would make working conditions worse. In thinking about a future with widespread use of driverless cars, 39% believe the number of people killed or injured in such accidents would go down. But 27% think the number killed or injured would go up; 31% say there would be little effect on traffic fatalities or injuries.

• People are far more likely to say the widespread use of several of these technologies would increase rather than decrease the gap between higher- and lower-income Americans. Some 57% say the widespread use of brain chips for enhanced cognitive function would increase the gap between higher- and lower-income Americans; just 10% say it would decrease the gap. There are similar patterns in views about the widespread use of driverless cars and gene editing for babies to greatly reduce the risk of serious disease during their lifetime.

• Even for far-reaching applications, such as the widespread use of driverless cars and brain chip implants, there are mitigating steps people say would make them more acceptable. Seven-in-ten Americans say they would find driverless cars more acceptable if there was a requirement that such cars were labeled as driverless so they could be easily identified on the road, and 67% would find these cars more acceptable if they were required to travel in dedicated lanes. In addition, 57% say their use would be more acceptable if a licensed driver was required to be in the vehicle. Similarly, about six-in-ten Americans think the use of computer chip implants in the brain would be more acceptable if people could turn on and off the effects, and 53% would find the brain implants more acceptable if the computer chips could be put in place without surgery.

• Public opinion is often contingent on the goals and circumstances around the uses of AI and human enhancement technologies. In addition to exploring views about the use of facial recognition by police in depth, the survey also sought opinions about several other possible uses of facial recognition technology. It shows that more U.S. adults oppose than favor the idea of social media sites using facial recognition to automatically identify people in photos (57% vs. 19%) and more oppose than favor the idea that companies might use facial recognition to automatically track the attendance of their employees (48% vs. 30%).

These are among the findings from the new report, which is based on a survey of 10,260 U.S. adults conducted online Nov. 1 to 7, 2021. The margin of error for the full sample is plus or minus 1.6 percentage points.

Read the full report: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/03/17/ai-and-human-enhancement-americans-openness-is-tempered-by-a-range-of-concerns/

Share this article: