Are AI Experts Delusional?
Pew Study Shows a Wide Gap Between Public and Expert Views
The public and AI experts see the technology very differently, according to a recent study from Pew Research. Seventy-eight percent of experts view AI as positive or neutral, while only 50 percent of the public sees it in the same light. The gap widens if you only examine positive views (56 versus 17%).
As one of the experts participating in the survey, I am not surprised by the results. This gap illustrates a failure to garner public adoption and a lack of familiarity with the full suite of AI tools and algorithms. Generative AI’s ongoing failures to realize the promises of its hype cycle fuel low adoption rates.
In this light, if only looking through the generative lens, much of the public’s skepticism of AI is well-founded. Two and a half years after the launch of ChatGPT, while increasingly omnipresent, LLM technologies still suffer from accuracy issues. They are often sold with tantalizing promises of efficiency and easier work. Yet, the AI’s first results usually fail to meet human expectations of quality.
Worse, many of the promised uses don’t match the actual needs customers have, making generative AI a technology in search of a problem. Vendors are telling customers to find their specific use cases for AI (Full disclosure: Much of my work is helping organizations translate their mission to AI use cases). Sure, organizations and consumers alike best understand their needs, but surely any business person can see the massive product design and marketing fail here.
It’s with little wonder, then, that you see such dramatic gaps between expert and public views of AI. In fact, from an aspirational perspective, the public’s most positive view of AI occurs in the medical sector, with only 44% believing in successful outcomes.
Additional Takeaways
There were additional manifestations of wide differentials about how AI will manifest itself, many of which are detailed below. The most notable is the fear of job loss. The 25-point differential between experts and the general public is indicative of a disconnect on AI’s actual impact.
That disconnect results from either one or a combination of the following:
The public’s lack of familiarity with AI’s inability to think strategically
Experts’ disconnect from the general public’s real-world experiences
Failure of AI marketing to address buyer concerns
This fear cannot be helped by the current regulatory environment in the United States, or lack thereof. Generally, both experts and adults alike feel that there are not enough guardrails in place. The Trump Administration is unlikely to provide protection to society or intellectual property creators with AI (you can read their new policy here). Further, the study revealed that both surveyed audiences felt AI companies would not self-regulate.
Another major disconnect is that men feel AI will be much more beneficial to society than women. The report also noted serious concerns about the impact on humanity and how we interact. Both could be EQ-related results (sorry, fellas), but a cross-comparison of gender and answers was not obvious or available in the report.
Conclusion
All in all, the Pew study shows that the public is not convinced that the AI boom is good for society or for themselves individually. The industry’s view of AI is much more bullish, but after two and a half years of generative AI, it has failed to convince consumer buyers. It is in the industry’s interest to address the public’s concerns and self-regulate to achieve incredible velocity and adoption.
What do you think of the Pew Research findings?