US experts who work in artificial intelligence fields seem to have a much rosier outlook on AI than the rest of us.

In a survey comparing views of a nationally representative sample (5,410) of the general public to a sample of 1,013 AI experts, the Pew Research Center found that “experts are far more positive and enthusiastic about AI than the public” and “far more likely than Americans overall to believe AI will have a very or somewhat positive impact on the United States over the next 20 years” (56 percent vs. 17 percent). And perhaps most glaringly, 76 percent of experts believe these technologies will benefit them personally rather than harm them (15 percent).

The public does not share this confidence. Only about 11 percent of the public says that “they are more excited than concerned about the increased use of AI in daily life.” They’re much more likely (51 percent) to say they’re more concerned than excited, whereas only 15 percent of experts shared that pessimism. Unlike the majority of experts, just 24 percent of the public thinks AI will be good for them, whereas nearly half the public anticipates they will be personally harmed by AI.

  • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    AI is mainly a tool for the powerful to oppress the lesser blessed. I mean cutting actual professionals out of the process to let CEOs wildest dreams go unchecked has devastating consequences already if rumors are to believed that some kids using ChatGPT cooked up those massive tariffs that have already erased trillions.

    • applemao@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yet my libertarian centrist friend INSISTS that AI is great for humanity. I keep telling him the billionaires don’t give a fuck about you and he keeps licking boots. How many others are like this??

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      I would agree with that if the cost of the tool was prohibitively expensive for the average person, but it’s really not.

      • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        It‘s too expensive for society already as it has stolen work from millions to even be trained with millions more to come. We literally cannot afford to work for free when the rich already suck up all that productivity increase we‘ve gained over the last century.

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I disagree. While intellectual property legally exists, ethically there’s no reason to be protective of it.

          Information should be a shared resource for everyone, and all these open weights models are a good example of that in action.

          • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Prepare to die on that hill I guess because this couldn‘t be further of what is happening right now. Copyright exists but only for top oligarchs.