公民如何看待人工智能在公共部门决策中的应用?

IF 7.8 1区 管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Government Information Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-12-29 DOI:10.1016/j.giq.2023.101906
Tessa Haesevoets , Bram Verschuere , Ruben Van Severen , Arne Roets
{"title":"公民如何看待人工智能在公共部门决策中的应用?","authors":"Tessa Haesevoets ,&nbsp;Bram Verschuere ,&nbsp;Ruben Van Severen ,&nbsp;Arne Roets","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2023.101906","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become increasingly prevalent in almost every aspect of our lives. At the same time, a debate about its applications, safety, and privacy is raging. In three studies, we explored how UK respondents perceive the usage of AI in various public sector decisions. Our results are fourfold. First, we found that people prefer AI to have considerably less decisional weight than various human decision-makers; those being: politicians, citizens, and (human) experts. Secondly, our findings revealed that people prefer AI to provide input and advice to these human decision-makers, rather than letting AI make decisions by itself. Thirdly, although AI is seen as contributing less to perceived legitimacy than these human decision-makers, similar to (human) experts, its contribution is seen more in terms of output legitimacy than in terms of input and throughput legitimacy. Finally, our results suggest that the involvement of AI is perceived more suitable for decisions that are low (instead of high) ideologically-charged. Overall, our findings thus show that people are rather skeptical towards using AI in the public domain, but this does not imply that they want to exclude AI entirely from the decision-making process.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"41 1","pages":"Article 101906"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X23001065/pdfft?md5=6629871fbc442fea11ec875103450b1c&pid=1-s2.0-S0740624X23001065-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do citizens perceive the use of Artificial Intelligence in public sector decisions?\",\"authors\":\"Tessa Haesevoets ,&nbsp;Bram Verschuere ,&nbsp;Ruben Van Severen ,&nbsp;Arne Roets\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.giq.2023.101906\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become increasingly prevalent in almost every aspect of our lives. At the same time, a debate about its applications, safety, and privacy is raging. In three studies, we explored how UK respondents perceive the usage of AI in various public sector decisions. Our results are fourfold. First, we found that people prefer AI to have considerably less decisional weight than various human decision-makers; those being: politicians, citizens, and (human) experts. Secondly, our findings revealed that people prefer AI to provide input and advice to these human decision-makers, rather than letting AI make decisions by itself. Thirdly, although AI is seen as contributing less to perceived legitimacy than these human decision-makers, similar to (human) experts, its contribution is seen more in terms of output legitimacy than in terms of input and throughput legitimacy. Finally, our results suggest that the involvement of AI is perceived more suitable for decisions that are low (instead of high) ideologically-charged. Overall, our findings thus show that people are rather skeptical towards using AI in the public domain, but this does not imply that they want to exclude AI entirely from the decision-making process.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48258,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Government Information Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"Article 101906\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X23001065/pdfft?md5=6629871fbc442fea11ec875103450b1c&pid=1-s2.0-S0740624X23001065-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Government Information Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X23001065\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Government Information Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X23001065","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工智能(AI)已日益渗透到我们生活的几乎方方面面。与此同时,有关其应用、安全性和隐私的争论也在激烈进行。在三项研究中,我们探讨了英国受访者如何看待人工智能在各种公共部门决策中的应用。我们的研究结果有四个方面。首先,我们发现,与各种人类决策者(包括政治家、公民和(人类)专家)相比,人们更倾向于人工智能所占的决策权重要小得多。其次,我们的研究结果表明,人们更喜欢人工智能为这些人类决策者提供意见和建议,而不是让人工智能自己做出决定。第三,尽管与人类决策者相比,人工智能被认为对感知合法性的贡献较小,但与(人类)专家类似,其贡献更多体现在产出合法性方面,而非投入和产出合法性方面。最后,我们的研究结果表明,人工智能的参与更适用于意识形态色彩较淡(而非较浓)的决策。总之,我们的研究结果表明,人们对在公共领域使用人工智能持怀疑态度,但这并不意味着他们希望将人工智能完全排除在决策过程之外。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How do citizens perceive the use of Artificial Intelligence in public sector decisions?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become increasingly prevalent in almost every aspect of our lives. At the same time, a debate about its applications, safety, and privacy is raging. In three studies, we explored how UK respondents perceive the usage of AI in various public sector decisions. Our results are fourfold. First, we found that people prefer AI to have considerably less decisional weight than various human decision-makers; those being: politicians, citizens, and (human) experts. Secondly, our findings revealed that people prefer AI to provide input and advice to these human decision-makers, rather than letting AI make decisions by itself. Thirdly, although AI is seen as contributing less to perceived legitimacy than these human decision-makers, similar to (human) experts, its contribution is seen more in terms of output legitimacy than in terms of input and throughput legitimacy. Finally, our results suggest that the involvement of AI is perceived more suitable for decisions that are low (instead of high) ideologically-charged. Overall, our findings thus show that people are rather skeptical towards using AI in the public domain, but this does not imply that they want to exclude AI entirely from the decision-making process.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Government Information Quarterly
Government Information Quarterly INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
106
期刊介绍: Government Information Quarterly (GIQ) delves into the convergence of policy, information technology, government, and the public. It explores the impact of policies on government information flows, the role of technology in innovative government services, and the dynamic between citizens and governing bodies in the digital age. GIQ serves as a premier journal, disseminating high-quality research and insights that bridge the realms of policy, information technology, government, and public engagement.
期刊最新文献
A more secure framework for open government data sharing based on federated learning Does trust in government moderate the perception towards deepfakes? Comparative perspectives from Asia on the risks of AI and misinformation for democracy Open government data and self-efficacy: The empirical evidence of micro foundation via survey experiments Transforming towards inclusion-by-design: Information system design principles shaping data-driven financial inclusiveness Bridging the gap: Towards an expanded toolkit for AI-driven decision-making in the public sector
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1