Generational Differences in Beliefs on AI

Artificial Intelligence is a rapidly growing field that will very likely play a significant role in the future of the world. While currently limited in its scope by technology, the possibilities of AI’s use are endless. Discussions on these possibilities are often divided on the application of technology. Articles on potential uses of AI are mostly cautiously optimistic. Others that discuss the advanced development of AI are split in opinion either predicting the doom of humanity, or a boon to humanity. Researchers of Artificial intelligence agree that AI has the potential to revolutionize the world. Depending on which path it develops, scholars believe this can be positive or negative.

Strong evidence showing the current capabilities of AI for social media is from the University of Maiduguri in the article “Mitigating hate speech in Nigeria: The possibilities of artificial intelligence,” by Joseph Wilson and Rahila Jibrin. The researchers address the use of AI as a tool to monitor and remove hate speech. The researchers focus on already existing solutions and how they might be applied to Nigeria. Current uses show that AI has the ability to detect hate speech with a high degree of accuracy. The researchers provide an example of AI in use by Twitter that “can detect sarcasm in tweets better than humans,” (Wilson et al, 2019, pg. 11). Despite the clear benefits to applying AI the researchers also acknowledge that there are potential moral challenges to using AI. Including, a belief in “freedom of speech for all without distinction,” and the “subjectivity of hate speech,” (Wilson et al, 2019, pg. 12).

AI also has the potential to play an important role in public health and the medical field. The article ““AI’s gonna have an impact on everything in society, so it has to have an impact on public health”: a fundamental qualitative descriptive study of the implications of artificial intelligence for public health” written by Morgenstern et al. investigates public health experts perceptions on the future uses of AI. These experts identified uses such as information gathering for disease surveillance, the potential for “automated…forms of screening for diseases,… and personalized health promotion,” (Morgenstern et al., 2021, pg. 9). These public health experts also highlighted barriers to the integration of AI. Including a “lack of leadership, available expertise, and funding” (Morgenstern et al., 2021, pg. 10). Despite these barriers, these experts believed the potential benefits of AI were high and could be very useful if developed and researched further.

A separate study examined AI and medicine from the perspective of patients. Researchers Nelson et al. investigated this in their article “Patient Perspectives on the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Skin Cancer Screening: A Qualitative Study.” Here researchers found that patients were mostly receptive to the use of AI for skin cancer screening. Most patients believed that AI could be used to make more accurate diagnoses than a human doctor. Paradoxically, most patients also believed that the biggest downfall of AI could be inaccuracy, particularly if patients were to use artificial intelligence as a diagnostic tool themselves. For example, if AI were “examining a photograph…[taken by a phone] in variable light,” (Nelson et al., 2020, pg 5). Patients were concerned that the AI would not recognize the issue. Another possible strength highlighted by 40% of participants was the potential push to send patients for medical advice. Meaning, the potential for easy accessibility and convenience of artificial intelligence could play a key factor in helping patients identify the need for treatment and motivate them to seek that treatment. A key takeaway from this research “was the importance of symbiosis between humans and AI,” to these patients (Nelson et al., 2020, pg. 1). These participants emphasized the importance of using AI as a tool to assist their doctors, and were receptive to the use of it, only if it did not interfere with their patient-doctor relationship.

These applications of artificial intelligence are likely achievable in the near future. In “The Possibility and Risks of Artificial General Intelligence ‘’ author Phil Torres lays out the risk of a world ending artificial intelligence. Torres emphasizes the need to develop Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) very carefully. If AGI were to develop “the same capacities as the human mind,” it could become the most powerful technology in the world within minutes. Torres describes a “positive feedback loop” that explains this rapid development (Torres, 2019, pg. 2). Meaning, AGI could develop to superintelligence nearly instantly by focusing on gathering information, and as it learns this new information, it grows and continues this loop. Torres notes the potential of AGI to solve humanity’s greatest problems, but only if humanity can maintain control over it. This leads Torres to caution against “an AGI arms race” (Torres, 2019, pg. 4). If one government were to develop AGI they could achieve world dominance.

Besides the potential for humanity’s doom, other researchers saw additional drawbacks in artificial intelligence’s ability to revolutionize society. The article “Investigating the Socio-Economic Consequences of Artificial Intelligence: A Qualitative Research” written by Adnan Ertemel, Talha Karadayi, and Paraskevi Makaritou, investigates the likely socio-economic effects of a world living with AI. These researchers interviewed “AI opinion leaders,” to help draw their conclusions (Ertemel et al., 2021, pg. 1). All participants in this study believed that there was potential for mass unemployment in operational jobs. The majority of AI leaders also believed that AI would have a positive economic effect, but would also lead to wealth inequality.

Research supports the idea that people perceive current AI as possessing at least a moderate amount of sentience. In the article “Attributions of Morality and Mind to Artificial Intelligence after Real World Moral Violations”, the authors Shank et al., investigate how humans place blame on AI after it has committed a moral violation. Shank et al. first establishes what constitutes a moral violation. This creates a basis for the rest of the experimentation to build off. Because a moral violation has been identified, the researchers then investigate the public’s reaction to it. One such incident being an AI judged beauty contest that was deemed racist due to a strong preference for lighter skinned participants. The researchers questioned whether more knowledge of AI will lead people to perceive these incidents as a moral violation. They found that more “knowledge of the AI’s algorithm increased reporting the event as a moral violation” (Shank et al., pg. 7). If there is a perception now that primitive AIs are somewhat sentient and are making moral judgements, then as AIs become more sophisticated this perception will increase.

Scholarly discussions around artificial intelligence promise that AI will play an important role in the future of the world. The majority of these researchers are cautiously optimistic about the development of AI. They believe that AI can be a great tool for humanity, aiding with public health, medicine, social media, and the economy. However, many note that if AI is created improperly the world could face great peril. Even with current limitations on artificial intelligence, many people assign a certain level of moral responsibility to the AI. Artificial intelligence is still early in development but a future of possibilities may be just around the corner.

Works Cited

Adnan Veysel Ertemel, Talha Karadayı, & Paraskevi Makaritou. (2021). Investigating the Socio-Economic Consequences of Artificial Intelligence: A Qualitative Research. Journal of International Trade Logistics and Law, 7(1), 75–89.

Joseph Wilson, & Rahila Jibrin. (2019). Mitigating hate speech in Nigeria: The possibilities of artificial intelligence. Análisi (Bellaterra, Spain), 61. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/analisi.3188

Morgenstern, Rosella, L. C., Daley, M. J., Goel, V., Schünemann, H. J., & Piggott, T. (2021). “AI’s gonna have an impact on everything in society, so it has to have an impact on public health”: a fundamental qualitative descriptive study of the implications of artificial intelligence for public health. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 40–40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-10030-x

Nelson, Pérez-Chada, L. M., Creadore, A., Li, S. J., Lo, K., Manjaly, P., Pournamdari, A. B., Tkachenko, E., Barbieri, J. S., Ko, J. M., Menon, A. V., Hartman, R. I., & Mostaghimi, A. (2020). Patient Perspectives on the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Skin Cancer Screening: A Qualitative Study. JAMA Dermatology (Chicago, Ill.), 156(5), 501–512. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.5014

Shank, & DeSanti, A. (2018). Attributions of morality and mind to artificial intelligence after real-world moral violations. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.014

Torres. (2019). The possibility and risks of artificial general intelligence. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 75(3), 105–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2019.1604873