This study is about how lay persons perceive and represent artificial intelligence in general as well as its use in weaponised autonomous ground vehicles in the military context. We analysed the discourse of six focus groups in Estonia, using an automatic text analysis tool and complemented the results by a qualitative thematic content analysis. The findings show that representations of artificial intelligence-driven machines are anchored in the image of man. A cluster analysis revealed five dominant themes: artificial intelligence as programmed machines, artificial intelligence and the problem of control, artificial intelligence and its relation to human life, artificial intelligence used in wars and ethical problems in developing autonomous weaponised machines. The findings are discussed with regard to people’s tendency to anthropomorphise robots despite their lack of emotions, which can be seen as a last resort when confronting an autonomous machine where the usual interpersonal understanding of intentions does not apply.
AllumNC (1998) A social representations approach to the comparison of three textual corpora using ALCESTE. Master’s Thesis, London School of Economics, London. Available at: http://repository.essex.ac.uk/21595/1/Allum-1998.pdf
2.
AppelMIzydorczykDWeberSMaraMLischetzkeT (2020) The uncanny of mind in a machine: Humanoid robots as tools, agents, and experiencers. Computers in Human Behavior102: 274–286.
3.
AydinB (2019) Public acceptance of drones: Knowledge, attitudes, and practice. Technology in Society59: 101180.
4.
Baron-CohenSLeslieAMFrithU (1985) Does the autistic child have a ‘theory of mind’. Cognition21(1): 37–46.
5.
BauerMWGaskellGAllumNC (2000) Quality, quantity and knowledge interests: Avoiding confusions. In: BauerMGaskellG (eds) Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound. London: SAGE, pp. 3–17.
6.
BonariniA (2016) Can my robotic home cleaner be happy? Issues about emotional expression in non-bio-inspired robots. Adaptive Behavior24(5): 335–349.
7.
BornR (1987) Artificial Intelligence: The Case Against. London: Routledge.
8.
CastelleM (2020) The social lives of generative adversarial networks. In: Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, p. 413. Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3351095.3373156
9.
CaveSDihalK (2019) Hopes and fears for intelligent machines in fiction and reality. Nature Machine Intelligence1(2): 74–78.
FastEHorvitzE (2017) Long-term trends in the public perception of artificial intelligence. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence31(1): 10635.
15.
FesterlingJSirajI (2021) Anthropomorphizing technology: A conceptual review of anthropomorphism research and how it relates to children’s engagements with digital voice assistants. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science56: 709–738.
16.
FodorJA (1992) A theory of the child’s theory of mind. Cognition44: 283–196.
17.
GaoSHeLChenYLiDLaiK (2020) Public perception of artificial intelligence in medical care: Content analysis of social media. Journal of Medical Internet Research22(7): e16649.
18.
GaskellGAllumNBauerMDurantJAllansdottirA (2000) Biotechnology and the European Public. Nature Biotechnology18: 935–938.
19.
GeraciRM (2008) Apocalyptic AI: Religion and the promise of artificial intelligence. Journal of the American Academy of Religion76(1): 138–166.
Idoiaga-MondragonNBelaskoM (2019) Understanding menstruation: Influence of gender and ideological factors. A study of young people’s social representations. Feminism & Psychology29(3): 357–373.
22.
Idoiaga-MondragonNBerasategi SanchoNOzamiz-EtxebarriaNAlonso SaezI (2021) Coping with COVID-19: Social representations underlying blaming processes and fear. Psychology & Health37: 828–846.
23.
IshiguroK (2021) Klara and the Sun. London: Faber & Faber.
24.
JovchelovitchS (2019) Knowledge in Context: Representations, Community and Culture. London: Routledge.
25.
KalampalikisN (2005) L’apport de la méthode ALCESTE dans l’analyse des représentations sociales (Using ALCESTE in social representations analyses, French). In: AbricJ-C (ed.) Méthodes d’étude des représentations sociales. Toulouse: ERES, pp. 147–163.
26.
KatzY (2020) Artificial Whiteness: Politics and Ideology in Artificial Intelligence. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
27.
KleinOLicataL (2003) When group representations serve social change: The speeches of Patrice Lumumba during the Congolese decolonization. British Journal of Social Psychology42(4): 571–593. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603322595284
KorngiebelDMMooneySD (2021) Considering the possibilities and pitfalls of Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3 (GPT-3) in healthcare delivery. NPJ Digital Medicine4(1): 1–3.
30.
KronbergerNWagnerW (2000) Keywords in context: Statistical analysis of text features. In: BauerMGaskellG (eds) Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound. London: SAGE, pp. 299–317.
31.
KronbergerNHoltzPWagnerW (2012) Consequences of media information uptake and deliberation: Focus groups’ symbolic coping with synthetic biology. Public Understanding of Science21(2): 174–187.
32.
KronbergerNHoltzPKerbeWStrasserEWagnerW (2009) Communicating Synthetic Biology: from the lab via the media to the broader public. Systems and Synthetic Biology3(4): 19–26.
33.
LahlouS (1996) A method to extract social representations from linguistic corpora. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology35(3): 278–291.
34.
LeiteIMartinhoCPaivaA (2013) Social robots for long-term interaction: A survey. International Journal of Social Robotics5(2): 291–308.
35.
McCarthyJMinskyMLRochesterNShannonCE (2006) A proposal for the dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence, August 31, 1955. AI Magazine27(4): 12–14.
36.
MoscoviciS (2000) Social Representations – Explorations in Social Psychology (trans. DuveenG). Cambridge: Polity Press.
37.
NewellA (1980) Physical symbol systems. Cognitive Science4(2): 135–183.
38.
O’DwyerEҪoymakA (2020) Basic human values and their contexts: A multilevel analysis of support for the use of armed drones in the United States, United Kingdom, and Turkey. Political Psychology41(2): 249–264.
39.
OguntolaIHughesDSycaraK (2021) Deep interpretable models of theory of mind. In: Proceedings of the 30th IEEE international conference on robot & human interactive communication, pp. 657–664. Available at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.02938.pdf
40.
OhSKimJHChoiS-WLeeHJHongJKwonSH (2019) Physician confidence in artificial intelligence: An online mobile survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research21(3): e12422.
41.
PivettiM (2007) Natural and unnatural: Activists’ representations of animal biotechnology. New Genetics and Society26(2): 137–157.
42.
PremackDWoodruffG (1978) Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?Behavioral and Brain Sciences4: 515–526.
RatinaudP (2009) IRAMUTEQ: Interface de R pour les Analyses Multidimensionnelles de Textes et de Questionnaires [Computer Software] [Interface for multidimensional text and questionnaire analysis for R, French]. Available at: http://www.iramuteq.org
45.
ReinertM (1990) ALCESTE – Une methodologie d’analyse des donnees textuelles et une application: AURELIA de Gerard de Nerval [ALCESTE – A methodology of textual data analysis and an application: AURELIA by Gerard de Nerval, French]. Bulletin De Methodologie Sociologique26(1): 24–54.
46.
RenvikTAMannerJVetikRSamDLJasinskaja-LahtiI (2020) Citizenship and socio-political integration: A person-oriented analysis among Russian-speaking minorities in Estonia, Finland and Norway. Journal of Social and Political Psychology8(1): 53–77.
47.
RosenblattF (1958) The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain. Psychological Review65(6): 386–408.
48.
SciuttiAMaraMTagliascoVSandiniG (2018) On the importance of mutual understanding. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine37: 22–29.
49.
SelwynNGallo CordobaB (2021) Australian public understandings of artificial intelligence. AI & Society37: 1645–1662.
50.
SerholtS (2018) Breakdowns in children’s interactions with a robotic tutor: A longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior81: 250–264.
51.
SimonHANewellA (1971) Human problem solving: The state of the theory in 1970. American Psychologist26(2): 145.
52.
SinglerB (2020) ‘Blessed by the algorithm’: Theistic conceptions of artificial intelligence in online discourse. AI & Society35(4): 945–955.
53.
SteinbrecherMWestphalF (2022) Nun sag, wie hast du’s mit bewaffneten Drohnen? Die Haltung zu bewaffneten Drohnen in Deutschland und ihre Erklärungsfaktoren [Now, what to you think about armed drones? Attitudes about armed drones and their explanations in Germany, German]. Zeitschrift Für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik15: 239–262.
54.
VallverdúJTrovatoG (2016) Emotional affordances for human-robot interaction. Adaptive Behavior24(5): 320–334.
55.
VergeerM (2020) Artificial intelligence in the Dutch press: An analysis of topics and trends. Communication Studies71(3): 373–392.
ViidaleppA (2020) Representations of robots in science fiction film narratives as signifiers of human identity. Információs Társadalom20(4): 19–36.
58.
WagnerW (2007) Vernacular science knowledge: Its role in everyday life communication. Public Understanding of Science16(1): 7–22.
59.
WagnerW (2021) Groups in contact: Meta-representations, interobjectivity, and cultural incompatibilities. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour51(1): 2–24.
60.
WagnerWHayesN (2005) Everyday Discourse and Common Sense – the Theory of Social Representations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
61.
WagnerWKronbergerNAllumNDe CheveignéSDiegoCGaskellG, et al. (2002a) Pandora’s genes – Images of genes and nature. In: BauerMGaskellG (eds) Biotechnology – The Making of a Global Controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 244–276.
62.
WagnerWKronbergerNSeifertF (2002b) Collective symbolic coping with new technology: Knowledge, images and public discourse. British Journal of Social Psychology41(3): 323–343.
63.
WagnerWValenciaJElejabarrietaF (1996) Relevance, discourse and the ‘hot’ stable core of social representations. British Journal of Social Psychology35(3): 331–351.
64.
WimmerHPernerJ (1983) Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition13: 103–128.
65.
YigitcanlarTKankanamgeNRegonaMRuiz-MaldonadoARowanB (2020) Artificial intelligence technologies and related urban planning and development concepts: How are they perceived and utilized in Australia?Journal of Open Innovation6(4): 187.
66.
ZengJChanCSchäferMS (2020) Contested Chinese dreams of AI? Public discourse about artificial intelligence on WeChat and People’s Daily Online. Information, Communication & Society25(3): 319–340.
67.
ZhaiYYanJZhangHLuW (2020) Tracing the evolution of AI: Conceptualization of artificial intelligence in mass media discourse. Information Discovery and Delivery48(3): 137–149.
68.
ZhangBDafoeA (2019) Artificial Intelligence: American Attitudes and Trends (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3312874). London: Social Science Research Network.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
