Abstract:Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming diverse societal domains, raising critical questions about its risks and benefits and the misalignments between public expectations and academic visions. This study examines how the general public (N=1110) -- people using or being affected by AI -- and academic AI experts (N=119) -- people shaping AI development -- perceive AI's capabilities and impact across 71 scenarios, including sustainability, healthcare, job performance, societal divides, art, and warfare. Participants evaluated each scenario on four dimensions: expected probability, perceived risk and benefit, and overall sentiment (or value). The findings reveal significant quantitative differences: experts anticipate higher probabilities, perceive lower risks, report greater utility, and express more favorable sentiment toward AI compared to the non-experts. Notably, risk-benefit tradeoffs differ: the public assigns risk half the weight of benefits, while experts assign it only a third. Visual maps of these evaluations highlight areas of convergence and divergence, identifying potential sources of public concern. These insights offer actionable guidance for researchers and policymakers to align AI development with societal values, fostering public trust and informed governance.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
### What problems does this paper attempt to solve?
This paper titled "Misalignments in Artificial Intelligence Perception: A Quantitative Study and Visual Mapping of Experts and the Public on Expectations, Risks, Benefits, and Value Judgments" aims to explore the differences in views between experts and the public regarding artificial intelligence (AI). Specifically, it attempts to answer the following key questions:
1. **What are the similarities and differences between experts and the public in their understanding of AI?**
- The study compared the views of AI experts (i.e., professionals involved in AI development and research) and the general public (i.e., ordinary people who use or are affected by AI) on AI.
2. **In which areas are these cognitive differences reflected?**
- The study analyzed 71 micro - scenarios, covering areas such as sustainability, healthcare, work performance, social differentiation, art, and war, to understand whether there are significant differences in the views of experts and the public in these different areas.
3. **How do the two groups differ in their value judgments of AI?**
- The study examined the participants' evaluations of the expected probability, perceived risk, perceived benefit, and overall sentiment (value or emotion) of AI to determine which areas are regarded as positive and which are regarded as negative, and how these judgments differ between the two groups.
4. **How do the risk - benefit trade - offs differ between experts and the public?**
- The study found that the public attaches more importance to risk when making risk - benefit trade - offs, while experts place more emphasis on benefit. For example, the public sets the risk weight as half of the benefit, while experts set it as only one - third of the benefit.
### Main research methods
To answer these questions, the study adopted the following methods:
- **Questionnaire survey**: Two closely related questionnaires were designed, one for the general public and the other for academic AI experts. Each participant evaluated 15 randomly selected micro - scenarios, covering five dimensions: expectation, personal risk, social risk, benefit, and emotion.
- **Data analysis**: Multiple statistical methods (such as parametric and non - parametric methods, correlation coefficients, chi - square tests, multiple linear regression, and multivariate analysis of variance, etc.) were used to analyze the data, revealing significant differences between experts and the public in each dimension.
### Significance of the study
Through this study, the authors hope to provide specific quantitative data and visual mappings of the differences in views between experts and the public on AI, thereby providing valuable references for researchers and policymakers. This helps to better understand the public's attitude towards AI, identify AI areas that need strengthened supervision, and emphasize the educational measures required to improve the public's understanding of AI and its impacts, ultimately promoting public trust and wise governance.
### Key conclusions
The study shows that experts generally expect a higher probability of occurrence, perceive lower risks, report greater utility, and have a more positive sentiment towards AI, while the public shows the opposite trend. The specific manifestations of these cognitive differences also vary in different areas, especially with significant differences in risk - benefit trade - offs. These findings provide guidance for future AI research agendas and point out areas that require special attention.