The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making
Authors:
Valerio Capraro,
Austin Lentsch,
Daron Acemoglu,
Selin Akgun,
Aisel Akhmedova,
Ennio Bilancini,
Jean-François Bonnefon,
Pablo Brañas-Garza,
Luigi Butera,
Karen M. Douglas,
Jim A. C. Everett,
Gerd Gigerenzer,
Christine Greenhow,
Daniel A. Hashimoto,
Julianne Holt-Lunstad,
Jolanda Jetten,
Simon Johnson,
Chiara Longoni,
Pete Lunn,
Simone Natale,
Iyad Rahwan,
Neil Selwyn,
Vivek Singh,
Siddharth Suri,
Jennifer Sutcliffe
, et al. (6 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Generative artificial intelligence has the potential to both exacerbate and ameliorate existing socioeconomic inequalities. In this article, we provide a state-of-the-art interdisciplinary overview of the potential impacts of generative AI on (mis)information and three information-intensive domains: work, education, and healthcare. Our goal is to highlight how generative AI could worsen existing i…
▽ More
Generative artificial intelligence has the potential to both exacerbate and ameliorate existing socioeconomic inequalities. In this article, we provide a state-of-the-art interdisciplinary overview of the potential impacts of generative AI on (mis)information and three information-intensive domains: work, education, and healthcare. Our goal is to highlight how generative AI could worsen existing inequalities while illuminating how AI may help mitigate pervasive social problems. In the information domain, generative AI can democratize content creation and access, but may dramatically expand the production and proliferation of misinformation. In the workplace, it can boost productivity and create new jobs, but the benefits will likely be distributed unevenly. In education, it offers personalized learning, but may widen the digital divide. In healthcare, it might improve diagnostics and accessibility, but could deepen pre-existing inequalities. In each section we cover a specific topic, evaluate existing research, identify critical gaps, and recommend research directions, including explicit trade-offs that complicate the derivation of a priori hypotheses. We conclude with a section highlighting the role of policymaking to maximize generative AI's potential to reduce inequalities while mitigating its harmful effects. We discuss strengths and weaknesses of existing policy frameworks in the European Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom, observing that each fails to fully confront the socioeconomic challenges we have identified. We propose several concrete policies that could promote shared prosperity through the advancement of generative AI. This article emphasizes the need for interdisciplinary collaborations to understand and address the complex challenges of generative AI.
△ Less
Submitted 6 May, 2024; v1 submitted 16 December, 2023;
originally announced January 2024.
Priming intuition disfavors instrumental harm but not impartial beneficence
Authors:
Valerio Capraro,
Jim A. C. Everett,
Brian D. Earp
Abstract:
Understanding the cognitive underpinnings of moral judgment is one of most pressing problems in psychological science. Some highly-cited studies suggest that reliance on intuition decreases utilitarian (expected welfare maximizing) judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas in which one has to decide whether to instrumentally harm (IH) one person to save a greater number of people. However, recent wo…
▽ More
Understanding the cognitive underpinnings of moral judgment is one of most pressing problems in psychological science. Some highly-cited studies suggest that reliance on intuition decreases utilitarian (expected welfare maximizing) judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas in which one has to decide whether to instrumentally harm (IH) one person to save a greater number of people. However, recent work suggests that such dilemmas are limited in that they fail to capture the positive, defining core of utilitarianism: commitment to impartial beneficence (IB). Accordingly, a new two-dimensional model of utilitarian judgment has been proposed that distinguishes IH and IB components. The role of intuition on this new model has not been studied. Does relying on intuition disfavor utilitarian choices only along the dimension of instrumental harm or does it also do so along the dimension of impartial beneficence? To answer this question, we conducted three studies (total N = 970, two preregistered) using conceptual priming of intuition versus deliberation on moral judgments. Our evidence converges on an interaction effect, with intuition decreasing utilitarian judgments in IH - as suggested by previous work - but failing to do so in IB. These findings bolster the recently proposed two-dimensional model of utilitarian moral judgment, and point to new avenues for future research.
△ Less
Submitted 17 April, 2019; v1 submitted 14 January, 2019;
originally announced January 2019.
