Technology

37875 readers

284 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Knowing less about AI makes people more open to having it in their lives – new research (theconversation.com)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The rapid spread of artificial intelligence has people wondering: who’s most likely to embrace AI in their daily lives? Many assume it’s the tech-savvy – those who understand how AI works – who are most eager to adopt it.

Surprisingly, our new research (published in the Journal of Marketing) finds the opposite. People with less knowledge about AI are actually more open to using the technology. We call this difference in adoption propensity the “lower literacy-higher receptivity” link.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 day ago

Speaking as a researcher in the AI/ML space, you see an interesting divergence at the upper end of familiarity. Some focus on the rapid recent growth of the technology and are quite enthusiastic about it, but others (myself included) focus much more on its limitations, especially driven by the type/quality of the training data used to make the models. I think it comes from different backgrounds prior to learning the tech. Computer science people tend to be in group one, whereas other scientists (biologists, physicists...) that adopt ML as a tool are more likely to be in group two. To be clear, all of this is my personal experience from personal interactions and literature review in graduate school, not some large scale survey.