Research shows that women perceive artificial intelligence (AI) to be more risky than men. Beatrice Magistro and colleagues hypothesized that women are more exposed to risks from AI than men and are generally more risk-averse. To test their hypothesis, the authors surveyed approximately 3,000 respondents in the United States and Canada in November 2023 using an opt-in panel from survey provider YouGov. Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed that the risks of generative AI outweigh the benefits. Risk orientation was estimated by analyzing responses to lottery questions. Respondents may prefer a guaranteed $1,000 win or a 50% chance of winning $2,000, and so on. The authors used postsecondary education as a proxy for risk exposure to AI, assuming that those with more education are in a better position to adapt to AI. To supplement this proxy, the authors also looked at which jobs the recipients held were thought to be most exposed to AI. When asked on a scale of 1 to 10 how much they agree that the risks of AI outweigh the benefits, men responded with an average of 4.38, while women responded 11% higher with an average of 4.87. However, women supported the use of AI almost as strongly as men, given a scenario in which the adoption of AI in companies was guaranteed to benefit employees. Women were generally more risk-averse than men, as evidenced by their responses to the lottery questions. Women were also personally more exposed to AI risks than men. When asked open-ended questions about the benefits of AI, women were more likely than men to express both uncertainty and skepticism, and more often said they didn’t know or saw little or no benefit. According to the authors, the findings highlight the importance of addressing gender-specific concerns in AI policy to ensure that AI does not exacerbate gender inequality or lead to political backlash against AI technology.
/Open to the public. This material from the original organization/author may be of a contemporary nature and has been edited for clarity, style, and length. Mirage.News does not take any institutional position or position, and all views, positions, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors alone. Read the full text here.
