courses-img1News
International Respiratory Medicine Conference 2024 JEMP2024 NextGen Omics US 2025 A Topic Collection Dedicated to JEMP 2024 9th Asian Conference on Civil, Material and Environmental Science The 4th Climate, Weather and Water Forum International Conference of the German Society for Plant Sciences Emerging concepts and Novel Mechanisms in Organ Fibrosis Workshop ECB-IBS 2024 Five Editors-in-Chief Featured in the List of "Highly Cited
Sign in Register Submit

Journals Article Details

Nature Anthropology-logo
Submit to Nat. Anthropol.
Perspective Open Access

The Future of Artificial Intelligence Will Be “Next to Normal”—A Perspective on Future Directions and the Psychology of AI Safety Concerns

Nature Anthropology. 2024, 2(1), 10001; https://doi.org/10.35534/natanthropol.2024.10001
Yoshija Walter *   
Kalaidos University of Applied Sciences, Institute for Management & Digitalization, 8050 Zurich, Switzerland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Received: 01 Nov 2023    Accepted: 06 Dec 2023    Published: 05 Jan 2024   

Full-Text HTML Full-Text PDF Download PDF

Abstract

This paper introduces the AI “next to normal”-thesis, suggesting that as Artificial Intelligence becomes more ingrained in our daily lives, it will transition from a sensationalized entity to a regular tool. However, this normalization has psychosocial implications, particularly when it comes to AI safety concerns. The “next to normal”-thesis proposes that AI will soon be perceived as a standard component of our technological interactions, with its sensationalized nature diminishing over time. As AI’s integration becomes more seamless, many users may not even recognize their interactions with AI systems. The paper delves into the psychology of AI safety concerns, discussing the “Mere Exposure Effect” and the “Black Box Effect”. While the former suggests that increased exposure to AI leads to a more positive perception, the latter highlights the unease stemming from not fully understanding its capabilities. These effects can be seen as two opposing forces shaping the public’s perception of the technology. The central claim of the thesis is that as AI progresses to become normal, human psychology will evolve alongside with it and safety concerns will diminish, which may have practical consequences. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of the “next to normal”-thesis and offers recommendations for the industry and policymakers, emphasizing the need for increased transparency, continuous education, robust regulation, and empirical research. The future of AI is envisioned as one that is seamlessly integrated into society, yet it is imperative to address the associated safety concerns proactively and not take the normalization effects take ahold of it.

Keywords

AI; Artificial intelligence; Mere exposure effect; Black box effect; AI safety concerns; Technological developments

References

1.
Afjal M. ChatGPT and the AI Revolution: A Comprehensive Investigation of Its Multidimensional Impact and Potential. Libr. Hi Tech 2023, ahead-of-print. doi:10.1108/LHT-07-2023-0322.
2.
Deng J, Lin Y. The Benefits and Challenges of ChatGPT: An Overview.  Front. Comput. Intell. Syst. 2022, 2, 81–83. [Google Scholar]
3.
Weßels D. ChatGPT – ein Meilenstein der KI-Entwicklung. Mitteilungen Dtsch. Math. Ver. 2023, 31, 17–19. [Google Scholar]
4.
Microsoft Microsoft Copilot, der tägliche KI-Begleiter. Available online: https://news.microsoft.com/de-ch/2023/09/21/ankundigung-von-microsoft-copilot-dem-taglichen-ki-begleiter/ (accessed on 26 October 2023).
5.
Nguyen NP, Mogaji E. Artificial Intelligence for Seamless Experience Across Channels. In Artificial Intelligence in Customer Service: The Next Frontier for Personalized Engagement; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 181–203. 
6.
Yu S, Emani M, Liao C, Lin P-H, Vanderbruggen T, Shen X, et al. Towards Seamless Management of AI Models in High-Performance Computing. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2212.06352.
7.
Hoffmann AL. Terms of Inclusion: Data, Discourse, Violence. New Media Soc. 2021, 23, 3539–3556. [Google Scholar]
8.
Wallace AA. When AI Meets IoT: AIoT. In The Emerald Handbook of Computer-Mediated Communication and Social Media; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2022; pp. 481–492.
9.
Elliott A. The Culture of AI: Everyday Life and the Digital Revolution; Routledge: London, UK, 2019.
10.
Maedche A, Legner C, Benlian A, Berger B, Gimpel H, Hess T, et al. AI-Based Digital Assistants. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2019, 61, 535–544. [Google Scholar]
11.
Haider J, Rödl M. Google Search and the Creation of Ignorance: The Case of the Climate Crisis. Big Data Soc. 2023, 10. doi:10.1177/20539517231158997.
12.
Hassani H, Silva ES, Unger S, TajMazinani M, Mac Feely S. Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Intelligence Augmentation (IA): What Is the Future? AI 2020, 1, 143–155. [Google Scholar]
13.
Kong H, Yuan Y, Baruch Y, Bu N, Jiang X, Wang K. Influences of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Awareness on Career Competency and Job Burnout. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 33, 717–734. [Google Scholar]
14.
Li X-H, Cao CC, Shi Y, Bai W, Gao H, Qiu L, et al. A Survey of Data-Driven and Knowledge-Aware eXplainable AI. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 2022, 34, 29–49. [Google Scholar]
15.
Cohen-Almagor R. Internet History. In Moral, Ethical, and Social Dilemmas in the Age of Technology: Theories and Practice; IGI Global: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 19–39.
16.
Zajonc RB. Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1968, 9, 1–27. [Google Scholar]
17.
Bornstein RF, Craver-Lemley C. Mere Exposure Effect. In Cognitive Illusions: Intriguing Phenomena in Thinking, Judgment and Memory, 2nd ed.; Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group: New York, NY, US, 2017; pp. 256–275.
18.
Harrison AA. Mere Exposure. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1977, 10, 39–83. [Google Scholar]
19.
Montoya RM, Horton RS, Vevea JL, Citkowicz M, Lauber EA. A Re-Examination of the Mere Exposure Effect: The Influence of Repeated Exposure on Recognition, Familiarity, and Liking. Psychol. Bull. 2017, 143, 459–498. [Google Scholar]
20.
Porr L. A Robot Wrote This Entire Article. Are You Scared yet, Human? The Guardian 2020.
21.
Cave S, Coughlan K, Dihal K. “Scary Robots”: Examining Public Responses to AI. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, Honolulu HI USA, 27–28 January 2019; pp. 331–337.
22.
Bai̇doo-Anu D, Ansah LO. Education in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI): Understanding the Potential Benefits of ChatGPT in Promoting Teaching and Learning. J. AI 2023, 7, 52–62. [Google Scholar]
23.
Abbass HA. Social Integration of Artificial Intelligence: Functions, Automation Allocation Logic and Human-Autonomy Trust. Cogn. Comput. 2019, 11, 159–171. [Google Scholar]
24.
Owsley CS, Greenwood K. Awareness and Perception of Artificial Intelligence Operationalized Integration in News Media Industry and Society. AI Soc. 2022, doi:10.1007/s00146-022-01386-2.
25.
Strange M, Tucker J. Global Governance and the Normalization of Artificial Intelligence as ‘Good’ for Human Health. AI Soc. 2023, doi:10.1007/s00146-023-01774-2.
26.
Laclau E, Mouffe C. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards A Radical Democratic Politics; Verso Books: London, UK, 2014.
27.
Taecharungroj V. “What Can ChatGPT Do?” Analyzing Early Reactions to the Innovative AI Chatbot on Twitter. Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2023, 7, 35. [Google Scholar]
28.
Pradhan I. Artificial Intelligence: The New Normal. Available online: https://www.theirm.org/news/artificial-intelligence-the-new-normal/ (accessed on 4 December 2023).
29.
Lee H-K. Rethinking Creativity: Creative Industries, AI and Everyday Creativity. Media Cult. Soc. 2022, 44, 601–612. [Google Scholar]
30.
Ng DTK, Lee M, Tan RJY, Hu X, Downie JS, Chu SKW. A Review of AI Teaching and Learning from 2000 to 2020. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2023, 28, 8445–8501. [Google Scholar]
31.
Buarque BS, Davies RB, Hynes RM, Kogler DF. OK Computer: The Creation and Integration of AI in Europe. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2020, 13, 175–192. [Google Scholar]
32.
Dinh TN, Thai MT. AI and Blockchain: A Disruptive Integration. Computer 2018, 51, 48–53. [Google Scholar]
33.
Khan SR, Al Rijjal D, Piro A, Wheeler MB Integration of AI and Traditional Medicine in Drug Discovery. Drug Discov. Today 2021, 26, 982–992. [Google Scholar]
34.
George G, Thomas MR. Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Human Resource. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Explor. Eng. 2019, 9, 5069–5073. [Google Scholar]
35.
Nagaty KA. IoT Commercial and Industrial Applications and AI-Powered IoT. In Frontiers of Quality Electronic Design (QED): AI, IoT and Hardware Security; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 465–500.
36.
Bostrom N. Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards. J. Evol. Technol. 2002, 9.
37.
Bostrom N. The Superintelligent Will: Motivation and Instrumental Rationality in Advanced Artificial Agents. Minds Mach. 2012, , 22, , 71–85. [Google Scholar]
38.
Müller VC, Bostrom N. Future Progress in Artificial Intelligence: A Survey of Expert Opinion. In Fundamental Issues of Artificial Intelligence; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 555–572.
39.
Barrat J. Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era; Thomas Dunne Books: New York, NY, USA, 2023.
40.
Yudkowsky E, Bostrom N. The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. In Artificial Intelligence Safety and Security; Chapman and Hall/CRC: London, UK, 2018; pp. 53–66.
41.
Dugas MJ, Laugesen N, Bukowski WM. Intolerance of Uncertainty, Fear of Anxiety, and Adolescent Worry. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2012, 40, 863–870. [Google Scholar]
42.
von Eschenbach WJ. Transparency and the Black Box Problem: Why We Do Not Trust AI. Philos. Technol. 2021, 34, 1607–1622. [Google Scholar]
43.
Poon AIF, Sung JJY. Opening the Black Box of AI-Medicine. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2021, 36, 581–584. [Google Scholar]
44.
Rai A. Explainable AI: From Black Box to Glass Box. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2020, 48, 137–141. [Google Scholar]
45.
Asatiani A, Malo P, Nagbøl PR, Penttinen E, Rinta-Kahila T, Salovaara A. Challenges of Explaining the Behavior of Black-Box AI Systems. MIS Q. Executive 2020, 19, 259–278. [Google Scholar]
46.
Bathaee Y. The Artificial Intelligence Black Box and the Failure of Intent and Causation. Harv. J. Law Technol. Harv. JOLT 2017, 31, 889. [Google Scholar]
47.
Durán JM, Jongsma KR. Who Is Afraid of Black Box Algorithms? On the Epistemological and Ethical Basis of Trust in Medical AI. J. Med. Ethics 2021, 47, 329–335. [Google Scholar]
48.
Holm E. In Defense of the Black Box. Science 2019, 364, 26–27. [Google Scholar]
49.
Amodei D, Olah C, Steinhardt J, Christiano P, Schulman J, Mané D. Concrete Problems in AI Safety. arXiv 2016, arXiv:1606.06565.
50.
Cardon PW, Ma H, Fleischmann C. Recorded Business Meetings and AI Algorithmic Tools: Negotiating Privacy Concerns, Psychological Safety, and Control. Int. J. Bus. Commun. 2023, 60, 1095–1122. [Google Scholar]
51.
Hernández-Orallo J. AI Safety Landscape from Short-Term Specific System Engineering to Long-Term Artificial General Intelligence. In Proceedings of the 2020 50th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks Workshops (DSN-W), Valencia, Spain, 29 June 2020–2 July 2020; pp. 72–73.
52.
PAI Safety Critical AI. Available online: https://partnershiponai.org/program/safety-critical-ai/ (accessed on 22 November 2023).
53.
Weidinger L, Rauh M, Marchal N, Manzini A, Hendricks LA, Mateos-Garcia J, et al. Sociotechnical Safety Evaluation of Generative AI Systems. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2310.11986.
54.
Yagi Y, Ikoma S, Kikuchi T. Attentional Modulation of the Mere Exposure Effect. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 2009, 35, 1403–1410. [Google Scholar]
55.
Van Dessel P, Mertens G, Smith CT, De Houwer J. The Mere Exposure Instruction Effect. Exp. Psychol. 2017, 64, 299–314. [Google Scholar]
56.
Wills P. Mere Exposure Effect. In Decision Making in Emergency Medicine: Biases, Errors and Solutions; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 209–213.
57.
Fortin DR, Wong MO. Now You See It, Now You Don’t: Empirical Findings from an Experiment on the Mere Exposure Effect of a Web-Based Advertisement. In Proceedings of the 2000 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2015; pp. 397–397.
58.
Leynes PA, Addante RJ. Neurophysiological Evidence That Perceptions of Fluency Produce Mere Exposure Effects. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 2016, 16, 754–767. [Google Scholar]
59.
Weeks WA, Longenecker JG, McKinney JA, Moore CW. The Role of Mere Exposure Effect on Ethical Tolerance: A Two-Study Approach. J. Bus. Ethics 2005, 58, 281–294. [Google Scholar]
60.
Véliz C, Prunkl C, Phillips-Brown M, Lechterman TM. We Might Be Afraid of Black-Box Algorithms. J. Med. Ethics 2021, 47, 339–340. [Google Scholar]
61.
Shen MW. Trust in AI: Interpretability Is Not Necessary or Sufficient, While Black-Box Interaction Is Necessary and Sufficient. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2202.05302.
62.
Allioui H, Mourdi Y. Unleashing the Potential of AI: Investigating Cutting-Edge Technologies That Are Transforming Businesses. Int. J. Comput. Eng. Data Sci. IJCEDS 2023, 3, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
63.
Prasad Agrawal K. Towards Adoption of Generative AI in Organizational Settings. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2023. doi:10.1080/08874417.2023.2240744.
64.
Plokhy S. Atoms and Ashes: A Global History of Nuclear Disasters; W. W. Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2022.
65.
Thurzo A, Strunga M, Urban R, Surovková J, Afrashtehfar KI. Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Dental Education: A Review and Guide for Curriculum Update. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 150. [Google Scholar]
Creative Commons

© 2024 by the authors; licensee SCIEPublish, SCISCAN co. Ltd. This article is an open access article distributed under the CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).