An important selling point for AI tools is convenience for users. Using new survey data, Katie O'Brien Find a general perception of what this actually means and find it far more subtle than simply spending time.
AI rules the world's news. AI applications offer smarter tools, faster systems, and an increasingly automated experience. They are convenient, time-saving and efficient for sale. However, as we have discovered, public ideas about handy AI are not the same as AI developers or policy makers.
Recently, Mark Sewards became the first British MP to create an AI version of his own, and has promised to offer all of this. His constituents can ask the chatbot for help with local issues or contact them anytime, day or night, and respond immediately. The purpose “helps strengthen the relationship between the MP's office and the members we serve,” Seward's office said in a statement.
Like many AI applications today, this AI version of Seward is advertised as a useful solution to the problem. This will facilitate access to local MPs and speed of enquiry response. Certainly, the chatbot itself uses the term convenience to explain its existence. But what is the convenience?
The disclosure of new technologies like AI that make them useful is very different from the promised smarter tools and automated experiences
The concept of convenience has a relatively recent history as we understand it as it is central to how digital tools are sold today. In the 1960s it gained popularity to describe time-saving or shifting arrangements, devices, or services. Useful foods are classic examples. Moreover, convenience does not mean the same for everyone. It can refer to time use, convenience, suitability, suitability, portability, accessibility, or avoidance of discomfort.
Given this and the widespread failure of AI developers and policymakers to listen to public opinion, it is probably not surprising that the general view of new technologies like AI are very different from the automated experiences promised by those who are using convenience to promote AI technology.
Convenience as a (moral) value
I work for Digital Good Network. There, I am interested in understanding what a great digital society looks like and how to get there. This involves thinking about what people want from AI. A survey conducted more than two time points on British citizens asked unresolved questions about what a great digital society would look like in the future. The most common theme of responses was its excellent technology.
- Help me with my daily life
- Let people stay connected
- Accessed and designed
- Designed responsibly and consider social meaning
- It's easy to use
- It provides a seamless user experience.
These themes seem to be more convenient. But as people dig deeper into what they want from digital technology, they find that the version of convenience they offer is not the faster, smarter, automated vision that is often evident in dominant discourse. Rather, for the public, convenience has a compassionate and moral aspect. Digital technologies like AI include the expectation that they need to support and strengthen their daily lives not only for themselves but for others as well.
For the general public, convenience has a compassionate and moral aspect.
Convenience means enabling connection, accessibility, inclusivity, and consideration of social outcomes. In this sense, convenience is the value that underpins the way that the public imagines superior digital technology. This was especially true when the above themes overlapped with people's imaginations about what a great digital society would look like. for example:
“Good technology should promote connection and happiness, not stress or isolation. It can promote meaningful social interactions and help manage time, or constant demands of notification and attention, and increase real value.
“It simplifies things for a wide range of users and does not require extensive training. It allows you to let go of some of the pressures of everyday life and release your mind in such a busy world.”
“Methods that can be used to facilitate the lives of people with disabilities”
“It's impossible for people who need it to access, for example, to book a blood test online, without the internet.”
“Good digital technology is accessible, available for sale and ethical. It solves real problems, increases productivity, and increases connectivity while protecting privacy and security.”
In these citations, respondents should simultaneously refer to supporting daily life, ease of use, and maintaining social connections. and Let them be considered good because the technology needs to be designed for everyone, including people with disabilities.
Though it's not a common theme, the theme associated with Seward's AI MP chatbots is that good digital technology has less face-to-face interaction. This was seen as particularly important by people who are unable to work, retired, self-employed, or with disabilities. for example:
“They provide outlets for people whose personality types and physical challenges make social interaction difficult.”
However, AI, which is good and useful for some people, is not for others. Technologies that allow less face-to-face interaction, like Seward's AI chatbots, can lead to harmful behaviors such as increased quarantine, as suggested by superior digital technologies. “Please avoid going out.”. So not only does there differ between developers and users' ideas about digital convenience, but there is also a difference between users, which is good convenience for some.
Build the convenient AI that people want
For the general public, convenience is not primarily related to making things smarter, faster or automated. In fact, these reinforcements are actively disliked by some.
“It's simple and functional and you can do what you need to do without flashy gimmicks or unnecessary add-ons.”
Rather, convenience has a moral character when used in conjunction with superior digital technology. UK people want digital technology that is both intuitive and easy at the same time and It is designed to be accessible, responsible and with a diverse citizen in mind. Similarly, convenience is seen as something people want for themselves, but in fact people want it for others. In that case, when talking about the convenience of digital technologies like AI, it's not important that everyone means the same thing, or experience the same thing when interacting with them.
Therefore, future automated public services like Seward's AI chatbots may not be as close to providing the convenient experience the public wants if strong stakeholders do not pay attention to the convenience of responding to their opinions in AI development and policy.
Understanding and responding to public opinions, including ideas about what makes useful AI, is essential in the context of growing distrust among technology companies and politicians, while the buy-in of AI public is essential. In doing so, policymakers create great AI policies and empower AI developers to build the AI-enabled society that people want. However, as discussed here, public views are often lacking from conversations about AI. Addressing this gap is essential to enabling good AI.
The content generated on this blog is for informational purposes only. This article presents the author's views and opinions and does not reflect the views or opinions of the influence of the Social Science Blog (blog) or the influence of the London School of Economics and Political Science. If you are concerned about posting comments below, please check our comment policy.
Image credit: Julieta Longo & Digit, Better Image of Connected but Disconnected AI (CC by 4.0).
