Trendspotting: The Limits of Techno-Optimism

NewsWire: 5/27/22

• Americans have mixed feelings about the potential uses of AI and human enhancement technologies. Large shares say that they have misgivings about how these developments would affect society. (Pew Research Center)
  
• NH: Silicon Valley titans have made it their mission to push further into the outer reaches of tech. Elon Musk pledged in January that Tesla’s biggest product would one day be humanoid robots. Facebook and Microsoft have poured billions of dollars into the metaverse.
• The public, however, is decidedly less optimistic about these advances. When asked how they feel about the increased use of AI in daily life, the share of U.S. adults who say they are “more concerned than excited” (37%) is more than twice the share that is more excited than concerned (18%). The largest share (45%) say they are equally concerned and excited.
• In the study, Pew asks about several tech advancements we’ve covered before in the NewsWire, including facial recognition technologies and driverless cars. (See “The Receding Mirage of Driverless Cars” and “Bring on the Cameras.”) Out of the six types of AI and human enhancement technologies Pew asked about, the use of facial recognition by police to catch criminals was received most positively, with 46% of adults saying that it’s a good idea for society. Only 26% said the same about driverless cars.
• One important difference between "good" and "bad" tech seems to be this: Americans are more positive about tech that provides us with new tools and enhances our lives; they're more negative about tech that essentially changes who we are. An AI filtering software of a robotic exoskeleton that the wearer can shed at the end of the day is potentially helpful. But a computer chip that changes our brains or gene editing that changes our genome is scary.

• No more than a third of Americans think that gene editing--even if it is limited to reducing the risk of disease later in life--would be good for society. And we’re wariest of all of brain implants that would help us process information faster. Just 13% say this would be good, compared to 56% who consider it bad. Yet it is instructive to note: When asked how they would feel about tech that would “allow some people to far more quickly and accurately process information,” 47% of Americans said that they were “very” or “somewhat” excited. The first sort of tech would alter our brains. The second would achieve a similar goal, but via a less invasive method. 
• Americans are also cautious about sweeping tech advances that would upend society. Driverless cars and designer babies fall into this category. Majorities of respondents said that they would support mitigating steps that would clearly define or limit the use of these technologies, such as allowing people to turn off their brain chips or only letting people with licenses wear exoskeletons. 
• Not surprisingly, people's opinions also shift depending on what the tech is used for. We welcome the use of facial recognition for security purposes like catching criminals, but are much less positive about the idea of it tracking our attendance at work or IDing us on social media.

• Opinions on most of these tech advances differ very little by age. On average, young adults are more cautious about facial recognition and more enthusiastic about driverless cars, but otherwise Americans are on the same page. The more extreme the tech, the more skeptical the response.