Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2403.14791 v4 pith:SBTKN5BL submitted 2024-03-21 cs.CY cs.AI

classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords developmentcasesdemocraticframeworkassessmentdevelopingdiverseharms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

General purpose AI, such as ChatGPT, seems to have lowered the barriers for the public to use AI and harness its power. However, the governance and development of AI still remain in the hands of a few, and the pace of development is accelerating without a comprehensive assessment of risks. As a first step towards democratic risk assessment and design of general purpose AI, we introduce PARTICIP-AI, a carefully designed framework for laypeople to speculate and assess AI use cases and their impacts. Our framework allows us to study more nuanced and detailed public opinions on AI through collecting use cases, surfacing diverse harms through risk assessment under alternate scenarios (i.e., developing and not developing a use case), and illuminating tensions over AI development through making a concluding choice on its development. To showcase the promise of our framework towards informing democratic AI development, we run a medium-scale study with inputs from 295 demographically diverse participants. Our analyses show that participants' responses emphasize applications for personal life and society, contrasting with most current AI development's business focus. We also surface diverse set of envisioned harms such as distrust in AI and institutions, complementary to those defined by experts. Furthermore, we found that perceived impact of not developing use cases significantly predicted participants' judgements of whether AI use cases should be developed, and highlighted lay users' concerns of techno-solutionism. We conclude with a discussion on how frameworks like PARTICIP-AI can further guide democratic AI development and governance.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 2 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Why (not) use AI? Analyzing People's Reasoning and Conditions for AI Acceptability

    cs.CY 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 197-person survey finds AI acceptability varies by use case and demographic background, and that rule-based reasoning is associated with lower acceptance and more disagreement.

Pith tools