Zeitzoff, Zilinsky: A banner against technology is not good politics

By Thomas Zeitzoff and Jan Zilinsky

Should you delete your social media apps? Some people have book-length arguments for you if you want to say yes.

Should you also avoid ChatGPT? Again, some will appeal to you to do just that.

“Keep your humanity,” they will beseech. In contrast to apps with algorithmic timelines or a hard-to-switch-off “For You” page, this latter technology seems like it can be delightfully time-saving. And nobody likes to waste their time. 

Most people agree that technology can be helpful on that front. In a recent survey, nearly seven in 10 Americans said that “computers and machines can help us do tasks that are too boring for humans to do.” And 52% of respondents also strongly or somewhat agreed that “artificial intelligence has the potential to greatly improve our lives.”

Americans generally hold ambivalent or conflicted views on technology — many appreciate its benefits but also harbor fears. A slight majority are concerned that scientists are designing software that could eventually harm humans. Regarding AI being an existential threat, 40% see it as a threat to humanity, 27% are unsure, and 33% do not view AI as a threat. (This is in line with previous polling.) 

We identified three components of a general orientation toward technology, comprising attitudes toward social media (concerns about surveillance, loneliness or politics getting nastier due to social media); pessimism (or optimism) about artificial intelligence; and a general outlook on modernity (endorsing views such as “modern technology prevents us from living in harmony with nature,” or that we have “let modern technology like smartphones take over our lives”). 

Data suggests that most people fall in the middle of the spectrum rather than being uniformly afraid of change. 

However, some individuals are generally pessimistic about technology and, more broadly, about democracy and other people. (Notably, loneliness and anti-establishment attitudes are prognostic of negative views of technology.)

Views of technology only correlate with support for policy issues, such as breaking up “Big Tech,” or government regulation of AI, but they are a stronger predictor of stances on policy than partisanship. General attitudes toward technology explain support for experimental but no-longer-hypothetical tools such as brain chip implants, self-driving cars or using facial recognition by law enforcement.

Our study also included an experiment to explore the persuasiveness of arguments for and against AI. Our 1,350 participants evaluated pairs of contrasting arguments. Each respondent saw three pairs of arguments, one advocating for AI and the other against it, to determine which was more convincing. There were 10 arguments — five in favor of AI and five against it.

Pro-AI arguments included points such as AI’s potential to speed up medical research and improve early diagnosis of diseases, its ability to perform repetitive tasks quickly to free up humans for more creative work, and the possibility of revolutionizing education through personalized learning experiences. In contrast, con-AI arguments highlighted concerns like AI’s potential to replace human jobs, leading to unemployment and economic inequality; the risk of AI misusing data; and the ethical issues surrounding AI’s use in military applications, deep fakes and surveillance systems.

The findings indicate that arguments against AI were slightly more persuasive, reflecting general skepticism. However, the most convincing argument was a pro-AI one, emphasizing the medical benefits of AI in improving research and diagnosis. While people are cautious about adopting new technologies like AI, they are persuadable, especially when the technology is framed in terms of tangible benefits like medical advancements or alleviation of mundane tasks. On the other hand, concerns about job displacement, privacy and the potential degradation of human skills are driving skepticism.

While anti-technology sentiment exists among a minority of voters, our results suggest that people generally recognize technology as a bundle of benefits with negative attributes and byproducts mixed in. Political agendas based on sweeping anti-technology platforms are thus unlikely to resonate widely. Voters desire a more balanced approach that acknowledges the benefits and potential pitfalls of new technologies.

Editor’s note: Thomas Zeitzoff is a professor in the School of Public Affairs at American University. Jan Zilinsky is a postdoctoral researcher at the Munich School of Politics and Public Policy. Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at AzOpinions@iniusa.org.