Who is responsible? US Public perceptions of AI governance through the lenses of trust and ethics

Abstract

The governance of artificial intelligence (AI) is an urgent challenge that requires actions from three interdependent stakeholders: individual citizens, technology corporations, and governments. We conducted an online survey (N = 525) of US adults to examine their beliefs about the governance responsibility of these stakeholders as a function of trust and AI ethics. Different dimensions of trust and different ethical concerns were associated with beliefs in governance responsibility of the three stakeholders. Specifically, belief in the governance responsibility of the government was associated with ethical concerns about AI, whereas belief in governance responsibility of corporations was related to both ethical concerns and trust in AI. Belief in governance responsibility of individuals was related to human-centered values of trust in AI and fairness. Overall, the findings point to the need for an interdependent framework in which citizens, corporations, and governments share governance responsibilities, guided by trust and ethics as the guardrails.

Keywords

AI ethics AI governance artificial intelligence (AI)trust trustworthy AI

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AI HLEG (2019) Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/346720 (accessed 3 August 2021).

Aldossari

Sidorova

(2020) Consumer acceptance of Internet of Things (IoT): Smart home context. Journal of Computer Information Systems 60(6): 507–517.

Armstrong

Bostrom

Shulman

(2016) Racing to the precipice: A model of artificial intelligence development. AI & Society 31(2): 201–206.

Arogyaswamy

(2020) Big tech and societal sustainability: An ethical framework. AI & Society 35(4): 829–840.

BAAI (2019) Beijing AI principles. Available at: https://www.baai.ac.cn/news/beijing-ai-principles-en.html (accessed 20 October 2021).

Bhandari

Ranta

Salo

(2022) The resource-based view, stakeholder capitalism, ESG, and sustainable competitive advantage: The firm’s embeddedness into ecology, society, and governance. Business Strategy and the Environment 31(4): 1525–1537.

Box

(2020) How G20 countries are working to support trustworthy AI. Available at: https://oecd-innovation-blog.com/2020/07/24/g20-artificial-intelligence-ai-principles-oecd-report/ (accessed 15 October 2021).

Buolamwini

Gebru

(2018) Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification In: Proceedings of the 1st conference on fairness, accountability and transparency, 21 January, pp. 77–91. PMLR. Available at: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html (accessed 5 November 2021).

Cacciatore

Scheufele

Corley

(2011) From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 20(3): 385–404.

10.

Carrasco

Mills

Whybrew

Jura

. (2019) The citizen’s perspective on the use of AI in government. Available at: https://www.bcg.com/publications/2019/citizen-perspective-use-artificial-intelligence-government-digital-benchmarking (accessed 11 October 2021).

11.

Castro

(2019) Who is Winning the AI Race: China, the EU or the United States? Center for Data Innovation. Available at: https://datainnovation.org/2019/08/who-is-winning-the-ai-race-china-the-eu-or-the-united-states/ (accessed 15 October 2021).

12.

Cave

ÓhÉigeartaigh

(2018) An AI race for strategic advantage: Rhetoric and risks. In: Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society, New Orleans, LA, 27 December, pp. 36–40. ACM. Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3278721.3278780 (accessed 10 February 2022).

13.

Cave

Coughlan

Dihal

(2019) ‘Scary robots’: Examining public responses to AI. In: Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society, Honolulu, HI, 27 January, pp. 331–337. ACM. Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3306618.3314232 (accessed 28 February 2023).

14.

Choung

David

Ross

(2022) Trust and ethics in AI. AI & Society 38: 733–745.

15.

Choung

David

Ross

(2023a) Trust in AI and its role in the acceptance of AI technologies. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 39: 1727–1739.

16.

Choung

David

Seberger

(2023b) A multilevel framework for AI governance. arXiv. DOI: 10.48550/ARXIV.2307.03198.

17.

Cihon

Schuett

Baum

(2021) Corporate governance of artificial intelligence in the public interest. Information 12(7): 275.

18.

Clark

(2021) Googler who helped lead 2018 walkout is joining the FTC. The Verge, 3 November. Available at: https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/2/22759776/google-meredith-whittaker-ftc-nomination-ai-ethics-regulation

19.

Colquitt

Scott

LePine

(2007) Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(4): 909–927.

20.

Earle

(2010) Trust in risk management: A model-based review of empirical research. Risk Analysis 30(4): 541–574.

21.

Edelman (2021) Edelman trust barometer 2021. Annual Edelman trust barometer. Available at: https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2021-03/2021%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer.pdf.

22.

European Parliament (2023) Artificial Intelligence Act: Deal on comprehensive rules for trustworthy AI. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20231206IPR15699/artificial-intelligence-act-deal-on-comprehensive-rules-for-trustworthy-ai (accessed 12 December 2023).

23.

Ferrario

Loi

Viganò

(2020) In AI we trust incrementally: A multi-layer model of trust to analyze human-artificial intelligence interactions. Philosophy & Technology 33(3): 523–539.

24.

Frazier

Johnson

Fainshmidt

(2013) Development and validation of a propensity to trust scale. Journal of Trust Research 3(2): 76–97.

25.

Granovetter

(1983) The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory 1: 201.

26.

Glikson

Woolley

(2020) Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals 14(2): 627–660.

27.

Google AI (n.d.) Why we focus on AI. Available at: https://ai.google/why-ai/ (accessed 13 June 2023).

28.

Government of Canada (2019) Declaration of the international panel on artificial intelligence. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2019/05/declaration-of-the-international-panel-on-artificial-intelligence.html (accessed 15 October 2021).

29.

Graf

Sonnberger

(2020) Responsibility, rationality, and acceptance: How future users of autonomous driving are constructed in stakeholders’ sociotechnical imaginaries. Public Understanding of Science 29(1): 61–75.

30.

Habib

Alsmadi

Prybutok

(2020) Factors that determine residents’ acceptance of smart city technologies. Behaviour & Information Technology 39(6): 610–623.

31.

Hagendorff

(2020) The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. Minds and Machines 30(1): 99–120.

32.

Hagendorff

(2022) A virtue-based framework to support putting AI ethics into practice. Philosophy & Technology 35(3): 55.

33.

Hao

(2019) In 2020, let’s stop AI ethics-washing and actually do something. Available at: https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/12/27/57/ai-ethics-washing-time-to-act/ (accessed 23 February 2023).

34.

IEEE (2017) The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. Version 2. Available at: http://standards.ieee.org/develop/indconn/ec/autonomous_systems.html. (accessed 7 January 2024).

35.

Jasanoff

Kim

S-H

(2009) Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva 47(2): 119–146.

36.

Jobin

Ienca

Vayena

(2019) The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence 1(9): 389–399.

37.

Kostka

Steinacker

Meckel

(2021) Between security and convenience: Facial recognition technology in the eyes of citizens in China, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Public Understanding of Science 30(6): 671–690.

38.

Kowalczuk

(2018) Consumer acceptance of smart speakers: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 12(4): 418–431.

39.

Lankton

McKnight

Tripp

(2015) Technology, humanness, and trust: Rethinking trust in technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 16(10): 880–918.

40.

Latour

(1990) Technology is society made durable. The Sociological Review 38(Suppl. 1): 103–131.

41.

Lee

See

(2004) Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46(1): 50–80.

42.

Lewis

Weigert

(1985) Trust as a social reality. Social Forces 63(4): 967–985.

43.

Lin

(2001) Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press.

44.

Luhmann

(1979) Trust and Power (English edition). Chichester; Toronto, ON, Canada: Wiley.

45.

McAllister

(1995) Affect- and cognitive-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal 38(1): 24–59.

46.

McKnight

Carter

Thatcher

Clay

. (2011) Trust in a specific technology: An investigation of its components and measures. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems 2(2): 1–25.

47.

Mayer

Davis

Schoorman

(1995) An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. The Academy of Management Review 20(3): 709–734.

48.

Microsoft (n.d.) Responsible AI principles from Microsoft. Available at: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/ai/responsible-ai (accessed 20 October 2021).

49.

Mittelstadt

(2019) Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence 1(11): 501–507.

50.

Newton

Zmerli

(2011) Three forms of trust and their association. European Political Science Review 3(2): 169–200.

51.

Noble

(2018) Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York, NY: New York University Press.

52.

OECD (2020) Examples of AI national policies. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/sti/examples-of-ai-national-policies.pdf

53.

Olofsson

Öhman

Rashid

(2006) Attitudes to gene technology: The significance of trust in institutions. European Societies 8(4): 601–624.

54.

Pavone

Degli Esposti

(2012) Public assessment of new surveillance-oriented security technologies: Beyond the trade-off between privacy and security. Public Understanding of Science 21(5): 556–572.

55.

Pinch

Bijker

(1984) The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science 14(3): 399–441.

56.

Pitlik

Kouba

(2015) Does social distrust always lead to a stronger support for government intervention? Public Choice 163(3): 355–377.

57.

Rosseel

(2012) lavaan : An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software 48(2).

58.

Rousseau

Sitkin

Burt

Camerer

(1998) Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review 23(3): 393–404.

59.

Seberger

(2021) Reconsidering the user in IoT: The subjectivity of things. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 25(3): 525–533.

60.

Seberger

Llavore

Wyant

Shklovski

Patil

(2021) Empowering resignation: There’s an app for that. In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’21), Yokohama, Japan, 6 May, pp. 1–18. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

61.

Seberger

Shklovski

Swiatek

, et al. (2022) Still creepy after all these years:The normalization of affective discomfort in app use. In: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New Orleans LA USA, 27 April 2022, pp. 1–19. ACM. Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3491102.3502112 (accessed 8 January 2024).

62.

Siegrist

(2021) Trust and risk perception: A critical review of the literature. Risk Analysis 41(3): 480–490.

63.

Siegrist

Cvetkovich

(2000) Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis 20(5): 713–720.

64.

Smith

(2018) Public attitudes toward computer algorithms. In: Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/11/16/public-attitudes-toward-computer-algorithms/ (accessed 21 January 2022).

65.

Sønderskov

Dinesen

(2016) Trusting the state, trusting each other? the effect of institutional trust on social trust. Political Behavior 38(1): 179–202.

66.

Susarla

(2023) How can Congress regulate AI? Erect guardrails, ensure accountability and address monopolistic power. Available at: http://theconversation.com/how-can-congress-regulate-ai-erect-guardrails-ensure-accountability-and-address-monopolistic-power-205900 (accessed 13 June 2023).

67.

Taeihagh

(2021) Governance of artificial intelligence. Policy and Society 40(2): 137–157.

68.

Veale

Borgesius

(2021) Demystifying the draft EU artificial intelligence act. arXiv:2107.03721. DOI: 10.9785/cri-2021-220402.

69.

Whittaker

Crawford

Dobbe

Fried

Kaziunas

Mathur

, et al. (2018) AI Now Report 2018. AI Now Institute and New York University. Available at: https://kennisopenbaarbestuur.nl/media/257225/ai_now_2018_report.pdf

70.

Windsor

(2001) The future of corporate social responsibility. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis 9(3): 225–256.

71.

Zhang

Dafoe

(2020) U.S. public opinion on the governance of artificial intelligence. In: Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society, New York, NY, 7 February, pp. 187–193. New York, NY: ACM. Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3375627.3375827 (accessed 26 February 2023).

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.

0.00 MB

0.07 MB