• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Core Principles of Responsible AI
    • Accountability
    • Fairness
    • Privacy
    • Safety and Security
    • Sustainability
    • Transparency
  • Special Topics
    • AI in Industry
    • Ethical Implications
    • Human-Centered Design
    • Regulatory Landscape
    • Technical Methods
  • Living Dictionary
  • State of AI Ethics
  • AI Ethics Brief
  • 🇫🇷
Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Democratizing AI ethics literacy

Risk and Trust Perceptions of the Public of Artificial Intelligence Applications

November 30, 2021

🔬 Research summary by Connor Wright, our Partnerships Manager.

[Original paper by Keeley Crockett, Matt Garratt, Annabel Latham, Edwin Colyer, Sean Goltz]


Overview: Does the general public trust AI more than those studying a higher education programme in computer science? The report aims to answer this very question, emphasising the importance of civic competence in AI.


Introduction

Is the opinion of the general public on AI different to those studying computer science in higher education? With a survey titled “You, me and “AI”: What’s the risk in giving AI more control?” the paper aims to compare responses on the level of trust and risk that people of the general public and students studying computer science in higher education give. What is for sure is that civic competency in AI is crucial in creating representative technology, something we hold dear to our hearts here at MAIEI.

Key Insights

Civic competency in AI

One of the main slogans of this paper, my TEDxYouth talk and what we do at MAIEI is the importance of civic competency in the AI field. By improving public understanding of AI, we better equip them to fight any misinformation on the subject. One way to do this is to develop online courses, following in the footsteps of the University of Helsinki. By allowing non-experts to become involved in the debate, we enrich and make more representative the AI space. 

Nevertheless, the paper points out how some may feel intimidated by courses offered by universities, for they don’t feel they have the right qualifications. Hence, a future focus can be in creating courses specifically designed for the common person. 

One of my core beliefs is that everyone can bring something to the AI table, no matter the level of expertise. Such value is clearly demonstrated in the data collated in the paper’s surveys.

The results

One of the main driving forces behind the survey is how previous studies conducted on the general public show varying degrees of knowledge about AI, but they all lack a robust description of the general public. Hence, the paper takes the general public to be those who have no specific knowledge in AI.

The groups of participants were split into Group 1 (the general public) and Group 2 (students of a higher education computer science programme). The groups were then asked questions on 3 different themes: trust, risk and questions on a scale of 0-10. A bird’s eye view of the results are as follows:

Trust

  • The groups were found to agree on questions such as not trusting an automated message from their boss, but differed on questions as to whether to trust a driverless car that had passed a “digital MOT” (p.g. 4). 
  • In this case, university students were more trusting of the AI involved.

Risk

  • The students always associated the same if not more risk to different AI applications, especially in terms of following instructions from a recognisable digitised voice.

On a scale from 0-10

  • There was general parity between the two groups on statements such as “I believe the minority of AI systems are biased”. The only difference came in how students placed less emphasis on AI system decisions being explainable.

Between the lines

While the general public is defined as being without deep knowledge in the field, it is crucial that they are deemed to be a key stakeholder. In this way, their interactions with AI systems must be considered when evaluating an AI model’s performance. As the paper rightly mentions, risk can occur at different points of the AI lifecycle, making system monitoring a vital aspect of a successful AI system. I hold that we cannot view AI systems as able to generalise over the whole population, meaning the practice is critical in ensuring that the system accurately tends to what it is designed to do and the problems this could bring. 

Want quick summaries of the latest research & reporting in AI ethics delivered to your inbox? Subscribe to the AI Ethics Brief. We publish bi-weekly.

Primary Sidebar

🔍 SEARCH

Spotlight

AI Policy Corner: Singapore’s National AI Strategy 2.0

AI Governance in a Competitive World: Balancing Innovation, Regulation and Ethics | Point Zero Forum 2025

AI Policy Corner: Frontier AI Safety Commitments, AI Seoul Summit 2024

AI Policy Corner: The Colorado State Deepfakes Act

Special Edition: Honouring the Legacy of Abhishek Gupta (1992–2024)

related posts

  • The Secret Sharer: Evaluating and Testing Unintended Memorization in Neural Networks (Research Summa...

    The Secret Sharer: Evaluating and Testing Unintended Memorization in Neural Networks (Research Summa...

  • Automated Interviewer or Augmented Survey? Collecting Social Data with Large Language Models

    Automated Interviewer or Augmented Survey? Collecting Social Data with Large Language Models

  • From Sparse to Dense: GPT-4 Summarization with Chain of Density Prompting

    From Sparse to Dense: GPT-4 Summarization with Chain of Density Prompting

  • Fairness Definitions Explained (Research Summary)

    Fairness Definitions Explained (Research Summary)

  • Research summary: Decolonial AI: Decolonial Theory as Sociotechnical Foresight in Artificial Intelli...

    Research summary: Decolonial AI: Decolonial Theory as Sociotechnical Foresight in Artificial Intelli...

  • Towards Environmentally Equitable AI via Geographical Load Balancing

    Towards Environmentally Equitable AI via Geographical Load Balancing

  • Achieving a ‘Good AI Society’: Comparing the Aims and Progress of the EU and the US

    Achieving a ‘Good AI Society’: Comparing the Aims and Progress of the EU and the US

  • From AI Winter to AI Hype: The Story of AI in Montreal

    From AI Winter to AI Hype: The Story of AI in Montreal

  • Responsible Design Patterns for Machine Learning Pipelines

    Responsible Design Patterns for Machine Learning Pipelines

  • Research summary: Towards the Systematic Reporting of the Energy and Carbon Footprints of Machine Le...

    Research summary: Towards the Systematic Reporting of the Energy and Carbon Footprints of Machine Le...

Partners

  •  
    U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute Consortium (AISIC) at NIST

  • Partnership on AI

  • The LF AI & Data Foundation

  • The AI Alliance

Footer

Categories


• Blog
• Research Summaries
• Columns
• Core Principles of Responsible AI
• Special Topics

Signature Content


• The State Of AI Ethics

• The Living Dictionary

• The AI Ethics Brief

Learn More


• About

• Open Access Policy

• Contributions Policy

• Editorial Stance on AI Tools

• Press

• Donate

• Contact

The AI Ethics Brief (bi-weekly newsletter)

About Us


Founded in 2018, the Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) is an international non-profit organization equipping citizens concerned about artificial intelligence and its impact on society to take action.


Archive

  • © MONTREAL AI ETHICS INSTITUTE. All rights reserved 2024.
  • This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
  • Learn more about our open access policy here.
  • Creative Commons License

    Save hours of work and stay on top of Responsible AI research and reporting with our bi-weekly email newsletter.