Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by Janet Pauketat, Ali, Jacy
3 min read 0

19

AI safetyExistential riskPolicySurveysAI forecastingAI governanceAI Pause Debate (2023)Artificial intelligenceArtificial sentienceDigital personEthics of artificial intelligenceNon-humans and the long-term futureResearchSentience InstituteTransformative artificial intelligence
Frontpage
This is a linkpost for https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/aims-survey

Here we briefly summarize the results so far from our U.S. nationally representative survey on Artificial Intelligence, Morality, and Sentience (AIMS), conducted in 2021 and 2023. The full reports are available on Sentience Institute’s website for the AIMS 2023 Supplemental Survey, AIMS 2023 Main Survey, and AIMS 2021 Main Survey. The raw data is available on Mendeley.

tl;dr: Results show that, from 2021 to 2023, there were increases in expectations of AI harm, moral concern for AIs, and mind perception of AIs. U.S. adults expect sentient AI to be developed sooner, now only in five years (median), and they strongly support AI regulation and slowdown.

Summary 

Americans are significantly more concerned about AI in 2023 than they were in 2021 before ChatGPT. Only 23% of U.S. adults trust AI companies to put safety over profits, and 27% trust the creators of an AI to maintain control of current and future versions. This translates to widespread support for slowdowns and regulation, such as 63% support for banning artificial general intelligence that is smarter than humans, according to nationally representative surveys conducted by the nonprofit research organization Sentience Institute.

People expect AI to come very soon. The median estimate for when AI will have “general intelligence” is only two years from now, and just five years for human-level AI, sentient AI, and superintelligence.

The prospect of sentient AI is particularly daunting as 20% of people think that some AIs are already sentient; 10% think ChatGPT is sentient; and 69% support a ban on the development of sentient AIs. If AIs become sentient, a surprisingly large number of people think we should take at least some steps to protect their welfare—71% agree that sentient AIs “deserve to be treated with respect,” and 38% are in favor of legal rights.

Based on preregistered predictions for multi-item measures in the survey, we found surprisingly high moral concern for sentient AI and a surprisingly high view of them as having a mind (i.e., “mind perception”). We also found significant increases from 2021 to 2023 in moral concern, mind perception, perceived threat, and support for banning sentience-related AI technologies. Two single-item measures also showed significantly shorter timelines for sentient AI from 2021 to 2023.

This provides landmark public opinion data from before to after 2022, a major year for AI in which people like Google engineer Blake Lemoine raised the possibility that current AIs may be sentient, and groundbreaking AI systems were launched such as Stable Diffusion and ChatGPT. Additional results for the most recent 2023 data include:

  • 71% support government regulation that slows AI development.
  • 39% support a “bill of rights” that protects the well-being of sentient robots/AIs.
  • 68% agreed that we must not cause unnecessary suffering to large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT or Bard, if they develop the capacity to suffer.
  • 20% of people think that some AIs are already sentient; 37% are not sure; and 43% say they are not.
  • 10% of people say ChatGPT is sentient; 37% are not sure; and 53% say it is not.
  • 23% trust AI companies to put safety over profits; 29% are not sure; and 49% do not.
  • 27% trust the creators of an AI to maintain control of current and future versions; 27% are not sure; and 26% do not.
  • 49% of people say the pace of AI development is too fast; 30% say it's fine; 19% say they’re not sure; only 2% say it's too slow.

The data was collected in three nationally representative survey waves. A set of 86 questions were asked of 1,232 U.S. adults from November to December 2021 and an independent sample of 1,169 from April to June 2023. Another 1,099 were asked 111 related questions in a supplemental survey from June to July 2023. Margins of error were approximately +/- 3%.

Visualizations

A screenshot of a graph
The proportion of survey responses to questions about the possibility of sentient AI.
A screenshot of a graph
From the 2023 AIMS main survey and supplement, answers to, “If you had to guess, how many years from now do you think that…?” for each type of AI: artificial general intelligence (AGI), superintelligence, human-level artificial intelligence (HLAI), and sentient AI. The weighted medians, excluding respondents who said it will never happen, were two years for AGI and five years for superintelligence, HLAI, and sentient AI.
A screenshot of a graph
Some of the most surprising results from the 2021 AIMS main survey based on the research team’s preregistered 80% credible intervals (i.e., intervals that we think the true value will lie within 80% of the time). Intervals are represented as black boxes, and actual results are blue circles. Note that these three groupings are for illustration and do not all correspond to specific indices.
A screenshot of a graph
Support and opposition to policies related to sentient AI from the 2023 AIMS main and 2023 AIMS supplemental survey.

19

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
More from Janet Pauketat
36
Artificial Intelligence, Morality, and Sentience (AIMS) Survey: 2021
3 authors
· · 3m read
0
0
36
Artificial Intelligence, Morality, and Sentience (AIMS) Survey: 2021
3 authors
· · 3m read
0
0
View more
Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
Recent opportunities in AI safety
57
Quick nudge to apply to the LTFF grant round (closing on Saturday)
calebp
· · 1m read
7
7
35
AIS Netherlands is looking for a Founding Executive Director (EOI form)
7 authors
· · 5m read
3
3
5
Nationwide Action Workshop: Contact Congress about AI Safety!
Felix De Simone
· · 1m read
0
0
View more