WHERE IN SOCIETY WILL AI AGENTS FIT? A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING ATTITUDES TOWARD AI OCCUPATIONAL ROLES FROM THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES OF STATUS, IDENTITY, AND ONTOLOGY

Abstract

To better understand what drives the public’s perception and acceptance of AI in different roles, we propose a study that looks at varying AI domains by occupational status and individual differences across ontological perceptions, automation anxiety, perceived status, and identity threat. As a first step, we conducted a representative survey of the US population (N = 1,005) that looked into the public's perceptions of AI replacement of high-status jobs. Results indicate that a majority of participants hold negative attitudes about AI replacement in all domains presented. However, participants were more open to AI replacement in lower-status roles such as journalist and hiring manager compared to higher-status roles of spiritual leader and trial judge. Contrary to our expectations, participants believed that trial judge was a slightly worse idea than AI spiritual advisor. This finding suggests that the associated machine heuristic of the judge role as being a more rational and objective occupation was not triggered in our sample. Our results also suggest that more vulnerable populations are more reluctant to accept AI in the majority of jobs. These findings are in line with previous public opinion surveys and demonstrate that individuals with lower levels of power and status are more likely to be reluctant to accept new technology and potentially perceive it as a threat. Our next step will be to include more occupations that can be potentially automated and look for explanatory mechanisms driving the public’s view of AI integration.