(It’s not) Ok Computer
The public are lukewarm about new technology. They’re hostile to AI. Does it matter?
We’re not that positive about new technology. Typically, we treat emerging tech with a healthy dose of cynicism. Occasionally, we treat it with outright hostility. In this edition of Slow Futures we’ll be looking at what our relatively unchanging attitudes mean for AI.
Here’s a fairly dull chart to start this edition. It shows the number of people agreeing or disagreeing with the statement: “Generally, new technology has a positive impact on society.” We’ve asked this question in the Trajectory Optimism Index every month since February 2018, and the data below are three-month rolling averages.
We can’t be sure exactly what people are picturing when they think about new technology. It seems likely that some are thinking of the essential digital hardware of our era – smartphones, personal computers and devices, various things with screens. Others might be imagining the products and services that we access on those devices – ride hailing apps, video and audio content, social media, fitness trackers. It’s possible some people imagine the foundations of those devices and services – internet and telecommunications infrastructure, satellites. I imagine at least a few people are thinking about more recent and conceptual technology – artificial intelligence, quantum computing, driverless cars.
Whatever we’re thinking of, we’re not that positive. In the first five months of the year, on average, fewer than 60% agree that new technology has a positive impact on society. That’s pretty much exactly where it’s been for the last six years, save the period in 2020 when we all needed to use Zoom to keep in touch with our friends and family. A minority actively disagree with the statement. So far in 2024, around one in eight people have disagreed.
I’m prepared to bet that when those people are thinking about new technology they aren’t thinking about the wheel, dishwashers, chairs, fridge freezers or vaccines1. But all of those things are – or at least, were – new technology, at least at one point. But after a while they got so widely used, so normal and so uncomplicated, we stopped thinking about them as technology. They became part of everyday life, in some cases quite literally part of the furniture. But all were new and novel at some point, and in different ways, disruptive.
Which brings us to AI.
Paranoid about androids
Artificial Intelligence has been around for decades. In this sense, although current manifestations are new, the concept is very established. Since at least the 1950s, and the IBM 702 and the Dartmouth Conference, scientists, researchers and science fiction writers have imagined a future in which computer systems simulate human intelligence. For decades it manifested mostly in fiction – with audiences more likely to be exposed to AI at the cinema than in day-to-day life – but since 2022 more people have been able to use forms of AI in publicly available tools.
We’ve explored attitudes to AI before in these pages, last Spring when we concluded that, fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your view) AI is not going to stop us working. But we haven’t explored wider public attitudes to it yet. New data collected in the Trajectory Optimism Index last month allows us to do just that.
All the data below is explored in more depth in last month’s member report, The AI Citizen. Now & Next members can download the report from the usual pages right away. If you’re not a member…
Firstly, some statements on AI.
They are not positive. Only a third of people think that either the public or private sector should make more use of AI and only 22% think it will make society fairer. Although people aren’t that worried about the impact of AI on their job (30%) more than twice the proportion are worried about the impact on society (61%). People are particularly concerned about deepfakes (62%). Election manifesto writers take note: 67% think the government needs to do more to regulate and control the development and use of the technology; only 9% would oppose that.
This is a far cry from the lukewarm reception that technology generally gets in our tracker. This is hostility, rather than a shrug. It’s worth noting that a sizeable proportion – usually around two-fifths – of the public either don’t know or don’t have much of an opinion on any of the statements. This partly reflects the relatively low salience of the issue, but also how little people even know about AI.
Less than half of the population have even heard the term ‘generative AI’. Only a third have heard the term ‘automation’ in the context of new technology. Despite what it might feel like on SubStack, LinkedIn or X/Twitter, the whole world is not talking about AI.
That’s not an impediment to use. Many people, myself included, don’t let their lack of knowledge about internal combustion engines stop them driving. As AI develops, and is used by more services and in more settings, it’s better to test public attitudes to scenarios in which they might encounter AI, as we do in the question below.
Ah. In every scenario tested a clear majority would prefer that the decision was made by a human, rather than AI. That sentiment is weakest where the volume of data involved is likely to be strongest – e.g. bank loan approvals or smart motorway limits – and strongest where judgement of some kind is placed on another human: guilt in a trial, a job offer, a university place, A&E prioritisation.
What does this mean?
None of this will stand in the way of AI, or offers any kind of serious barrier to its wider use. Humans are pretty bad at reacting to new technology, and pretty good at integrating them, more or less seamlessly, into daily life.
Some data from the excellent Archive of Market and Social Research offers a window into this. In the October 1997 edition of MORI’s British Public Opinion it was reported that…
only 22% of the public felt comfortable using the internet
40% agreed that Information Technology was a threat to employment
On specific uses, only 38% said they would feel comfortable using a computer to shop – 45% said they’d feel uncomfortable shopping online
The public were evenly split on their comfort/discomfort with using a computer to bank, to access information on company or Government services and were decisively uncomfortable with receiving medical advice via a computer.
64% worried about the effects of computers on children’s eyesight.
Analysts looking at these figures might have concluded that the internet and information technology would struggle to find an audience, or overcome these discomforts. I can’t find equivalent data on dishwashers but I’m prepared to bet people were just as cautious, just as sceptical. The technology is developing all the time, but our views about it don’t change at all.
None of this is to say that there aren’t real, serious risks from the development and wider use of AI. The seriousness with which lawmakers around the world – especially the EU – are developing new regulatory frameworks is testament to that. But a hostile reaction to new technology is completely typical.
More than this
This edition needed both hot-off-the-press data on public attitudes to AI and a long term values tracker on views towards technology to put those reactions in context. Luckily, Trajectory’s Optimism Index is an ever-growing archive of consumer values, attitudes and behaviours, featuring well over 100,000 interviews since 2018 and a perfect balance of regular trackers and topical insights.
The data drives our ongoing Horizon Scan, which is available to Now & Next members, as is our latest in-depth report, The AI Citizen. If you’re interested in finding out more, you can click here, or drop me a line.
Alright, some of them probably are thinking about vaccines.