AI and Human Enhancement: Americans’ Openness Is Tempered by a Range of Concerns

Public views are tied to how these technologies would be used, what constraints would be in place

March 17, 2022

By LEE RAINIE, CARY FUNK, MONICA ANDERSON, AND ALEC TYSON

Reprinted from Pew Research Center

Developments in artificial intelligence and human enhancement technologies have the potential to remake American society in the coming decades. A new Pew Research Center survey finds that Americans see promise in the ways these technologies could improve daily life and human abilities. Yet public views are also defined by the context of how these technologies would be used, what constraints would be in place and who would stand to benefit – or lose – if these advances become widespread.

Fundamentally, caution runs through public views of artificial intelligence (AI) and human enhancement applications, often centered around concerns about autonomy, unintended consequences and the amount of change these developments might mean for humans and society. People think economic disparities might worsen as some advances emerge and that technologies, like facial recognition software, could lead to more surveillance of Black or Hispanic Americans.

This survey looks at a broad arc of scientific and technological developments – some in use now, some still emerging. It concentrates on public views about six developments that are widely discussed among futurists, ethicists and policy advocates. Three are part of the burgeoning array of AI applications: the use of facial recognition technology by police, the use of algorithms by social media companies to find false information on their sites and the development of driverless passenger vehicles.

The other three, often described as types of human enhancements, revolve around developments tied to the convergence of AI, biotechnology, nanotechnology and other fields. They raise the possibility of dramatic changes to human abilities in the future: computer chip implants in the brain to advance people’s cognitive skills, gene editing to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of developing serious diseases or health conditions, and robotic exoskeletons with a built-in AI system to greatly increase strength for lifting in manual labor jobs.

The current report builds on previous Pew Research Center analyses of attitudes about emerging scientific and technological developments and their implications for society, including opinion about animal genetic engineering and the potential to “enhance” human abilities through biomedical interventions, as well as views about automation and computer algorithms.

As Americans make judgments about the potential impact of AI and human enhancement applications, their views are varied and, for portions of the public, infused with uncertainty.

Americans are far more positive than negative about the widespread use of facial recognition technology by police to monitor crowds and look for people who may have committed a crime: 46% of U.S. adults think this would be a good idea for society, while 27% think this would be a bad idea and another 27% are unsure.

By narrower margins, more describe the use of computer algorithms by social media companies to find false information on their sites as a good rather than bad idea for society (38% vs. 31%), and the pattern is similar for the use of robotic exoskeletons with a built-in AI system to increase strength for manual labor jobs (33% vs. 24%).

By contrast, the public is much more cautious about a future with widespread use of computer chip implants in the brain to allow people to far more quickly and accurately process information: 56% say this would be a bad idea for society, while just 13% think this would be a good idea. And when it comes to the much-discussed possibility of a future with autonomous passenger vehicles in widespread use, more Americans say this would be a bad idea (44%) than a good idea (26%).

Still, uncertainty is among the themes seen in emerging public views of AI and human enhancement applications. For instance, 42% are not sure how the widespread use of robotic exoskeletons in manual labor jobs would impact society. Similarly, 39% say they are not sure about the potential implications for society if gene editing is widely used to change the DNA of embryos to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of developing serious diseases or health conditions over their lifetime.

Ambivalence is another theme in the survey data: 45% say they are equally excited and concerned about the increased use of AI programs in daily life, compared with 37% who say they are more concerned than excited and 18% who say they are more excited than concerned.

A survey respondent summed up his excitement about the increased use of artificial intelligence in an open-ended question by saying:

“AI can help slingshot us into the future. It gives us the ability to focus on more complex issues and use the computing power of AI to solve world issues faster. AI should be used to help improve society as a whole if used correctly. This only works if we use it for the greater good and not for greed and power. AI is a tool, but it all depends on how this tool will be used.” – Man, 30s

Another respondent explained her ethical concerns about the increased use of AI this way:

“It’s just not normal. It’s removing the human race from doing the things that we should be doing. It’s scary because I’ve read from scientists that in the near future, robots can end up making decisions that we have no control over. I don’t like it at all.” – Woman, 60s

It is important to note that views on these specific applications do not constitute the full scope of opinions about the growing number of uses of AI and the proliferating possible advances being contemplated to boost human abilities.

The survey was built around six vignettes, to root opinion in a specific context and allow for a deeper exploration of views. Thus, our questions about public attitudes about facial recognition technology are not intended to cover all possible uses but, instead, to measure opinions about its use by police. Similarly, we concentrated our exploration of brain chip implants on their potential to allow people to far more efficiently process information rather than on the use of brain implants to address therapeutic needs, such as helping people with spinal cord injuries restore movement.

The survey findings underscore how public opinion is often contingent on the goals and circumstances around the uses of AI and human enhancement technologies. For example, in addition to exploring views about the use of facial recognition by police in depth, the survey also sought opinions about several other possible uses of facial recognition technology. It shows that more U.S. adults oppose than favor the idea of social media sites using facial recognition to automatically identify people in photos (57% vs. 19%) and more oppose than favor the idea that companies might use facial recognition to automatically track the attendance of their employees (48% vs. 30%).

Some of the key themes in the survey of 10,260 U.S. adults, conducted in early November 2021:

A new era is emerging that Americans believe should have higher standards for assessing the safety of emerging technologies. The survey sought public views about how to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the four technologies still in development and not widely used today. Across the set, there is strong support for the idea that higher standards should be applied, rather than the standards that are currently the norm. For instance, 87% of Americans say that higher standards for testing driverless cars should be in place, rather than using existing standards for passenger cars. And 83% believe the testing of brain chip implants should meet a higher standard than is currently in use to test medical devices. Eight-in-ten Americans say that the testing regime for gene editing to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of serious diseases should be higher than that currently applied to testing medical treatments; 72% think the testing of robotic exoskeletons for manual labor should use higher standards than those currently applied to workplace equipment.

Sharp partisan divisions anchor people’s views about possible government regulation of these new and developing technologies. As people think about possible government regulation of these six scientific and technological developments, which prospect gives them more concern: that government will go too far or not far enough in regulating their use?

Majorities of Republicans and independents who lean to the Republican Party say they are more concerned about government overreach, while majorities of Democrats and Democratic leaners worry more that there will be too little oversight.

For example, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say their greater concern is that the government will go too far regulating of the use of robotic exoskeletons for manual labor (67% vs. 33%). Conversely, Democrats are more likely than Republicans say their concern is that government regulation will not go far enough.

People are relatively open to the idea that a variety of actors – in addition to the federal government – should have a role in setting the standards for how these technologies should be regulated. Across all six applications, majorities believe that federal government agencies, the creators of the different AI systems and human enhancement technologies and end users should play at least a minor role in setting standards.

Less than half of the public believes these technologies would improve things over the current situation. One factor tied to public views of human enhancement is whether people think these developments would make life better than it is now, or whether reliance on AI would improve on human judgment or performance. On these questions, less than half of the public is convinced improvements would result.

For example, 32% of Americans think that robotic exoskeletons with built-in AI systems to increase strength for manual labor would generally lead to improved working conditions. However, 36% think their use would not make much difference and 31% say they would make working conditions worse.

In thinking about a future with widespread use of driverless cars, 39% believe the number of people killed or injured in such accidents would go down. But 27% think the number killed or injured would go up; 31% say there would be little effect on traffic fatalities or injuries.

Similarly, 34% think the widespread use of facial recognition by police would make policing more fair; 40% think that it would not make much difference, and 25% think it would make policing less fair.

Another concern for Americans ties to the potential impact of these emerging technologies on social equity. People are far more likely to say the widespread use of several of these technologies would increase rather than decrease the gap between higher- and lower-income Americans. For instance, 57% say the widespread use of brain chips for enhanced cognitive function would increase the gap between higher- and lower-income Americans; just 10% say it would decrease the gap. There are similar patterns in views about the widespread use of driverless cars and gene editing for babies to greatly reduce the risk of serious disease during their lifetime.

Even for far-reaching applications, such as the widespread use of driverless cars and brain chip implants, there are mitigating steps people say would make them more acceptable. A desire to retain the ability to shape their own destinies is a theme seen in public views across AI and human enhancement technologies. For even the most advanced technologies, there are mitigating steps – some of which address the issue of autonomy – that Americans say would make the use of these technologies more acceptable.

Seven-in-ten Americans say they would find driverless cars more acceptable if there was a requirement that such cars were labeled as driverless so they could be easily identified on the road, and 67% would find driverless cars more acceptable if these cars were required to travel in dedicated lanes. In addition, 57% say their use would be more acceptable if a licensed driver was required to be in the vehicle.

Similarly, about six-in-ten Americans think the use of computer chip implants in the brain would be more acceptable if people could turn on and off the effects, and 53% would find the brain implants more acceptable if the computer chips could be put in place without surgery.

About half or more also see mitigating steps that would make the use of robotic exoskeletons, facial recognition technology by police and gene editing in babies to greatly reduce the risk of serious disease during their lifetime more acceptable.

A map to this report

The chapters that follow cover a broad terrain.

How Americans think about artificial intelligence: Chapter 1 looks at people’s views about the increasing use of AI in everyday life and summarizes their written responses to an open-ended question about their concerns and excitement. It identifies some of the potential uses of AI that prompt more excitement than concern from the public – for instance, AI systems that can help with household chores. And it highlights some applications that would concern the public, including the potential of AI programs to know people’s thoughts and behaviors or make important life decisions for people. The chapter also looks at the common themes and demographic differences in how Americans think about the three specific contexts for AI in the survey.

Public more likely to see facial recognition use by police as good, rather than bad for society: Some 21% of Americans say they have heard or read a lot about this use of technology, 58% have heard a little and 20% have heard nothing at all. A plurality (46%) believe it is a good idea for society. Still, a 57% majority say that if widespread use of facial recognition by police occurs, crime would stay about the same. And 66% say police definitely or probably would use facial recognition to monitor Black and Hispanic neighborhoods much more often than other neighborhoods.

Mixed views about social media companies using algorithms to find false information: About a quarter (24%) of Americans have heard or read a lot about this, 51% have heard a little and 24% have heard nothing at all. Many social media users have seen information on these sites that has been flagged or labeled as false. Seven-in-ten think the widespread use of algorithms to find false information is leading to censorship of political viewpoints, and 69% say it’s leading to news and information being wrongly removed from the sites.

Americans cautious about the deployment of driverless cars: About a quarter of U.S. adults (26%) have heard a lot about driverless cars, compared with 62% who have heard a little and 12% who have heard nothing at all. Some 45% would be not too or not at all comfortable sharing the road with them, and more say they would not want to ride in a driverless vehicle themselves than say they would want to do this (63% vs. 37%).

What Americans think about possibilities ahead for human enhancement: Chapter 5 looks at how people anticipate a future where scientific and technological advances could bring fundamental shifts in human abilities. Americans are more enthusiastic about possibilities that could bring therapeutic benefits to people, such as by allowing increased movement for people who are paralyzed. There is generally far less enthusiasm for using these technologies to enhance human abilities in ways that don’t address a clear need. Across possible uses, men are generally more supportive of potential changes to human abilities than women. Those with higher levels of religious commitment often express concern and are more likely to see such changes as meddling with nature, compared with those who have lower levels of religious commitment.

Public cautious about enhancing cognitive function using computer chip implants in the brain: A 62% majority foresees potential benefits for job productivity from brain chip implants for far faster and more accurate information processing. But most Americans (78%) say they, personally, would not want a brain chip implant if it were available. And 63% say widespread use of brain chips for cognitive enhancement would be meddling with nature and crossing a line we should not cross; far fewer (35%) say this would be in keeping with other ways humans have tried to better themselves over time.

Americans are closely divided over editing a baby’s genes to reduce serious health risk: On a personal level, about half of Americans say they would want gene editing for their own baby to greatly reduce the baby’s risks of developing serious disease or health conditions, while roughly the same share say they would not want this (48% to 49%). At the same time, a majority (73%) thinks most parents would feel pressure to get this for their baby if the use of this technology becomes widespread.

Mixed views about a future with widespread use of robotic exoskeletons to increase strength for manual labor jobs: Americans anticipate both benefits and downsides for workers from the possibility of widespread use of robotic exoskeletons with a built-in AI system to increase strength for manual labor jobs such as manufacturing or construction. About two-thirds (65%) see the potential for a wider array of people to fill such jobs, and 70% think the use of robotic exoskeletons would help prevent injuries on the job. At the same time, large majorities see this development as leading to worker layoffs (81%) and anticipate loss of strength for workers who rely on these devices (73%).

1. How Americans think about artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) is spreading through society into some of the most important sectors of people’s lives – from health care and legal services to agriculture and transportation.¹ As Americans watch this proliferation, they are worried in some ways and excited in others.

In broad strokes, a larger share of Americans say they are “more concerned than excited” by the increased use of AI in daily life than say the opposite. Nearly half of U.S. adults (45%) say they are equally concerned and excited. Asked to explain in their own words what concerns them most about AI, some of those who are more concerned than excited cite their worries about potential loss of jobs, privacy considerations and the prospect that AI’s ascent might surpass human skills – and others say it will lead to a loss of human connection, be misused or be relied on too much.

But others are “more excited than concerned,” and they mention such things as the societal improvements they hope will emerge, the time savings and efficiencies AI can bring to daily life and the ways in which AI systems might be helpful and safer at work. And people have mixed views on whether three specific AI applications are good or bad for society at large.

This chapter covers the general findings of the survey related to AI programs. It also runs through highlights from in-depth explorations of public attitudes about three AI-related applications that are fully explored in the three chapters after this. Some key findings:

How Pew Research Center approached this topic

The Center survey asked respondents a series of questions about three applications of artificial intelligence (AI):

• Facial recognition technology that could be used by police to look for people who may have committed a crime or to monitor crowds in public spaces.
• Computer programs, called algorithms, used by social media companies to find false information about important topics that appears on their sites.
• Driverless passenger vehicles that are equipped with software allowing them to operate with computer assistance and are expected to be able to operate entirely on their own without a human driver in the future.

Other questions asked respondents their feelings about AI’s increased use, the way AI programs are designed and a range of other possible AI applications.

This study builds on prior Center research including surveys on Americans’ views about automation in everyday life, the role of algorithms in parts of society and the use of facial recognition technology. It also draws on insights from several canvassings of experts about the future of AI and humans.

Use of facial recognition by police: We chose to explore the use of facial recognition by police because police reform has been a major topic of debate, especially in the wake of the killing of George Floyd in May 2020 and the ensuing protests. The survey shows that a plurality (46%) thinks use of this technology by police is a good idea for society, while 27% believe it is a bad idea and 27% say they are not sure. At the same time, 57% think crime would stay about the same if the use of facial recognition by the police becomes widespread, while 33% think crime would decrease and 8% think it would rise.

Moreover, there are divided views about how the widespread use of facial recognition technology would impact the fairness of policing. Majorities believe it is definitely or probably likely that widespread police use of this technology would result in more missing persons being found by police and crimes being solved more quickly and efficiently. Still, about two-thirds also think police would be able to track everyone’s location at all times and that police would monitor Black and Hispanic neighborhoods much more often than other neighborhoods.

Use of computer programs by social media companies to find false information on their sites: We chose to study attitudes about the use of computer programs (algorithms) by social media companies because social media is used by a majority of U.S. adults. There are also concerns about the impact of made-up information and how efforts to target misinformation might affect freedom of information. The survey finds that 38% of U.S. adults think that the widespread use of computer programs by social media companies to find false information on their sites has been a good idea for society, compared with 31% who say it is a bad idea and 30% who say they are not sure.

When asked about specific possible impacts, public views are largely negative. Majorities believe widespread use of algorithms by social media companies to find false information is definitely or probably causing political views to be censored and news and information to be wrongly removed from the sites. And majorities do not think these algorithms are causing beneficial things to happen like making it easier to find trustworthy information or allowing people to have more meaningful conversations. There are substantial partisan differences on these questions, with Republicans and those who lean toward the GOP holding more negative views than Democrats and Democratic leaners.

Driverless passenger vehicles: We chose to study public views about driverless passenger vehicles because they are being tested on roads now and their rollout on a larger scale is being debated. The survey finds that a plurality of Americans (44%) believe that the widespread use of driverless passenger vehicles would be a bad idea for society. That compares with the 26% who think this would be a good idea. Some 29% say they are not sure. A majority say they definitely or probably would not want to ride in a driverless car if they had the opportunity. Some 39% believe widespread use of driverless cars would decrease the number of people killed or injured in traffic accidents, while 31% think there would not be much difference and 27% think there would be an increase in these types of deaths or injuries.

People envision a mix of positive and negative outcomes from widespread use of driverless cars. Majorities believe older adults and those with disabilities would be able to live more independently and that getting from place to place would be less stressful. At the same time, majorities also think many people who make their living by driving others or delivering things with passenger vehicles would lose their jobs and that the computer systems in driverless passenger vehicles would be easily hacked in ways that put safety at risk.

In their responses to survey questions about other possible developments in artificial intelligence, majorities express concern about the prospect that AI could know people’s thoughts and behaviors and make important life decisions for people. And when it comes to the use of AI for decision-making in a variety of fields, the public is more opposed than not to the use of computer programs (algorithms) to make final decisions about which patients should get a medical treatment, which people should be good candidates for parole, which job applicants should move on to a next round of interviews or which people should be approved for mortgages.

Still, there are some possible AI applications that draw public appeal. For example, more Americans are excited than concerned about AI applications that can do household chores. That is also the pattern when people are asked about AI apps that can perform repetitive workplace tasks.

There are patterns in views of three AI applications, but other opinions are unique to particular AI systems

The chapters following this one cover extensive findings about people’s views about three major applications of AI, including demographic differences and patterns that emerge.

Americans are split in their views about the use of facial recognition by police. Among these differences: While majorities across racial and ethnic groups say police would use facial recognition to monitor Black and Hispanic neighborhoods much more often than other neighborhoods if the technology became widespread, Black and Hispanic adults are more likely than White adults to say this. As for the way algorithms are being used by social media companies to identify false information, there are clear partisan differences in the public’s assessment of the use of those computer programs. And people believe that a mix of both positive and negative outcomes would occur if driverless cars became widely used.

When it comes to public awareness of these AI applications, majorities have heard at least a little about each of them, but some Americans have not heard about them at all and awareness can relate to views of these applications. For instance, those who have heard a lot about driverless passenger vehicles are more likely than those who have not heard anything about such cars to believe they are a good idea for society. But when it comes to the use of facial recognition by the police, those who have heard a lot are more likely to say it is a bad idea for society than those who have not heard anything about it. Views about whether the use of algorithms by social media companies to detect false information on their sites is good or bad for society lean negative among those who have heard a lot, while among those who have heard nothing, over half are not sure how they feel about this practice.

In addition to awareness being a factor associated with Americans’ views about these AI applications, there are patterns related to education. Those with higher levels of education often hold different views than those who have less formal education. For example, those with a postgraduate education are more likely than those with a high school education or less to think the widespread use of algorithms by social media companies to root out false information on the platforms and the use of driverless vehicles are good ideas for society. The reverse is true for facial recognition – those with a postgraduate degree are more likely to think its widespread use by police is a bad idea for society than those with a high school diploma or less education.

Additionally, the views of young adults and older adults diverge at times when these three AI applications are assessed. For instance, adults ages 18 to 29 are more likely than those 65 and older to say the widespread use of facial recognition by police is a bad idea for society. At the same time, this same group of young adults is more likely than those 65 and older to think the widespread use of self-driving cars is a good idea for society.

The next sections of this chapter cover the findings from the survey’s general questions about AI.

Americans more likely to be ‘more concerned than excited’ about increased use of AI in daily life than vice versa

In this survey, artificial intelligence computer programs were described as those designed to learn tasks that humans typically do, such as recognizing speech or pictures. Of course, an array of AI applications are being implemented in everything from game-playing to food growing to disease outbreak detection. Synthesis efforts now regularly chart the spread of AI.

As these developments unfold, a larger share of Americans say they are “more concerned than excited” about the increased use of AI in everyday life than say they are “more excited than concerned” about these prospects (37% vs. 18%). And nearly half (45%) say they are equally excited and concerned.

There are some differences by educational attainment and political affiliation. For instance, a larger share of those who have some college experience or a high school education or less say they are more concerned than excited, compared with their counterparts who have a bachelor’s or advanced degree (40% vs. 32%). Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say they are more concerned than excited (45% vs. 31%). Full details about the views of different groups on this question can be found in the Appendix.

When those who say they are more excited than concerned about the increased use of AI in daily life are asked to explain in their own words the main reason they feel that way, 31% said they believe AI has the ability to make key aspects of our lives and society better.

As one man explained in his written comments:

“AI, if used to its fullest ‘best’ potential, could help to solve an unbelievable number of major problems in the world and help solve massive crises like world hunger, pollution, climate change, joblessness and others.” – Man, 30s

A woman made a similar point:

“[AI has] the ability to learn and create things that humans are incapable of doing. [AI programs] will have massive impacts to our daily life and will solve issues related to climate change and healthcare.” – Woman, 30s

Smaller shares of those who express more excitement than concern over AI mention its ability to save time and make tasks more efficient (13%), see it as a reflection of inevitable progress (10%), or cite the fact that it could handle mundane or tedious tasks (7%) as the main reasons why they lean enthusiastic about the prospect of AI’s increased presence in daily life.

Those who are excited about the increased use of AI in daily life also cite AI’s ability to improve work, their sense that AI is interesting and exciting and the ability of AI programs to perform difficult or dangerous tasks as a reason: 6% of those more excited than concerned mentioned each.

In addition, 4% of those who are more excited say AI is more accurate than humans, while an identical share say they are excited because AI can make things more accessible for those who have a disability or who are older. Some 2% offer personal anecdotes of how AI has already been beneficial to their lives, and another 2% wrote that many of the fears about AI are misplaced due to what they believe to be unrealistic depictions of AI in science fiction and popular culture.

The 37% of Americans who are more concerned than excited about AI’s increasing use in daily life also mention a number of reasons behind their reticence. About one-in-five among this group (19%) express concerns that increased use of AI will result in job loss for humans. As a woman in her 70s put it:

“[AI programs] will eventually eliminate jobs. Then what will those people do to survive in life?” – Woman, 70s

Meanwhile, 16% of those who are more concerned about the increased use of AI say it could lead to privacy problems, surveillance or hacking. A woman in her 30s wrote of this concern:

“I am concerned that the increased use of artificial intelligence programs will infringe on the privacy of individuals. I feel these programs are not regulated enough and can be used to obtain information without the person knowing.” – Woman, 30s

Another 12% of these respondents are concerned about dehumanization, or the belief that human connections and qualities will be lost, while 8% each mention the potential for AI becoming too powerful or for people to misuse the technology for nefarious reasons.

Some 7% who express more concern than excitement about AI offer that it would make people overly reliant on this technology, and 6% worry about the failures and flaws of the technology.

Small shares of those who are worried about the integration of AI also mention other concerns ranging from what technology companies or the government would do with this type of technology to human biases being embedded into these computer programs to what they see as a lack of regulation or oversight of the technology and the industries that develop them.

Mixed views about some ways AI applications could develop: People are more excited about some, more concerned about others

In addition to the broad question about where people stand in terms of their general excitement or concern about AI, this survey also asked about a number of more specific possible developments in AI programs.

There are widely varying public views about six different kinds of AI applications that were included in the survey. Some prompt relatively more excitement than concern, and some generate substantial concern. For instance, 57% say they would be very or somewhat excited for AI applications that could perform household chores, but just 9% express the same level of enthusiasm for AI making important life decisions for people or knowing their thoughts and behaviors.

Nearly half (46%) would be very or somewhat excited about AI that could perform repetitive workplace tasks, compared with 26% who would be very or somewhat concerned about that. When it comes to AI that could diagnose medical problems, people are more evenly split: 40% would be at least somewhat excited and 35% would be at least somewhat concerned, while 24% say they are equally excited and concerned. More cautionary views are also evident when people are asked about AI that could handle customer service calls: 47% are very or somewhat concerned about this issue, compared with 27% who are at least somewhat excited.

It is important to note that on these issues, portions of Americans say they are equally excited and concerned about various possible AI developments. That share ranges from 16% to 27% depending on the possible development.

Some differences among groups stand out as Americans assess these various AI apps. Those with a high school education or less are more likely than those with postgraduate degrees to say they are at least somewhat concerned at the prospect that AI programs could perform repetitive workplace tasks (36% vs. 12%). Women are more likely than men to say they would be at least somewhat concerned if AI programs could diagnose medical problems (43% vs. 27%). A larger share of those ages 65 and older (82%) than of those 18 to 29 (63%) say they would be very or somewhat concerned if AI programs could make important life decisions for people.

Views of men, White adults seen as better represented than those of other groups when designing AI programs

In recent years, there have been significant revelations about and investigations into potential shortcomings of artificial intelligence programs. One of the central concerns is that AI computer systems may not factor in a diversity of perspectives, especially when it comes to gender, race and ethnicity.

In this survey, people were asked how well they thought that those who design AI programs take into account the experiences and views of some groups. Overall, about half of Americans (51%) believe the experiences and views of men are very or somewhat well taken into account by those who design AI programs. By contrast, smaller shares feel the views of women are taken into account very or somewhat well. And while just 12% of U.S. adults say the experiences of men are not well taken into account in the design of AI programs, about twice that share say the same about the experiences and views of women.

Additionally, 48% think the views of White adults are at least somewhat well taken into account in the creation of AI programs, versus smaller shares who think the views of Asian, Black or Hispanic adults are well-represented. Just 13% feel the views and experiences of White adults are not well taken into account; 23% say the same about Asian adults and a third say this about Black or Hispanic adults.

Still, there are about four-in-ten in each case who, when asked these questions, say they are not sure how the experiences and views of different groups are taken into account as AI programs are designed.

Views on this topic vary across racial and ethnic groups:

Among White adults: They are more likely than other racial and ethnic groups to say they are “not sure” how well the designers of AI programs take into account each of the six sets of experiences and views queried in this survey. For instance, 45% of White adults say they are not sure if the experiences and views of White adults are well accounted for in the design of AI programs. That compares with 30% of Black adults, 28% of Hispanic adults and 21% of Asian adults who say they are not sure about this. Similar uncertainty among White adults appears when they are asked about other groups’ perspectives.

Among Black adults: About half of Black adults (47%) believe that the experiences and views of Black adults are not well taken into account by the people who design artificial intelligence programs, while a smaller share (24%) say Black adults’ experiences are well taken into account. Compared with Black adults, a similar share of Asian adults (39%) feel the experiences and views of Black adults are not well taken into account when AI programs are designed, while Hispanic adults (35%) and White adults (29%) are less likely than Black adults to hold this view.

Among Hispanic adults: About one-third of Hispanic Americans (34%) believe the experiences and views of Hispanic adults are well taken into account as the programs are designed. This is the highest share among the groups in the survey: 24% of Asian adults, 22% of Black adults and 21% of White adults feel this way. Meanwhile, 36% of Hispanic adults say the experiences and views of Hispanic adults are not well taken into account as AI programs are designed. About three-in-ten Hispanic adults (29%) say they are not sure on this question.

Among Asian adults: Some 41% of Asian adults think that the experiences of Asian adults are well taken into account. Similar shares of Hispanic adults (42%) and Black adults (36%) say this about Asians’ views, versus a smaller share of White adults (29%) who think that is the case.

A plurality of Americans are not sure whether AI can be fairly designed

In addition to gathering opinion on how well various perspectives are taken into account, the survey explored how people judge AI programs when it comes to fair decisions. Asked if it is possible for the people who design AI to create computer programs that can consistently make fair decisions in complex situations, Americans are divided: 30% say AI design for fair decisions is possible, 28% say it is not possible, while the largest share – 41% – say they are not sure.

Some noteworthy differences among different groups on this question are tied to gender. Men are more likely than women to believe it is possible to design AI programs that can consistently make fair decisions (38% vs. 22%), and women are more likely to say they are not sure (46% vs. 35%).

2. Public more likely to see facial recognition use by police as good, rather than bad for society

Facial recognition technology dates back to the 1960s, with techniques that relied on hand coding facial features of each face in the database. The rise of massive databases, automation, complex analytical tools and machine learning has vastly transformed the capacity and reach of this technology. Facial recognition is now used in a variety of contexts, such as unlocking a phone with the user’s face, diagnosing certain diseases and finding lost pets.

Perhaps one of the most well-known applications of facial recognition technology is law enforcement, where agencies can use it to find missing people, aid in solving crimes and help monitor large crowds of people. There is not comprehensive data about how many law enforcement agencies use facial recognition technologies. The federal Government Accountability Office reported in July 2021 that 42 federal agencies that employ law enforcement officers have used facial recognition technology in one form or another. The capacity of law enforcement organizations to identify faces has prompted both controversy and excitement over the years. While some say they appreciate how the technology can aid in policing, others have concerns regarding how police use of it can impact privacy and how inaccurate it can be when it comes to identifying Black and Hispanic adults.

This study explores Americans’ thoughts and perspectives regarding widespread use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement and beyond. It finds that majorities of the American public believe widespread use of facial recognition would likely help find missing persons and solve crimes, but majorities also think it is likely that police would use this technology to track everyone’s location and surveil Black and Hispanic communities more than others. In terms of potential impact, 46% of U.S. adults say widespread use of facial recognition technology by police would be a good idea for society while 27% believe it would be a bad idea. An additional 27% say they are unsure whether it would be a good or bad idea for police to widely use facial recognition technology.

More see the widespread use of facial recognition technology in policing as a good than bad idea, but a majority says it won’t change crime rates

Facial recognition technology use by police has generated media attention, which has not gone unnoticed by the public. Eight-in-ten Americans say they have heard or read at least a little about the use of facial recognition technology by police, with 21% having heard a lot.

Adults 50 and older are more likely than those under 5o to say widespread use of facial recognition technology by police would be a good idea for society (52% vs. 40%). Similarly, 52% of adults with a high school diploma or less say it would be a good idea, while somewhat smaller shares of those with more formal education say the same.

People who have heard or read a lot about the use of facial recognition technology by police are more likely to say it’s a bad idea for society, compared with those who have heard a little or nothing at all on the topic.

While a plurality of Americans think widespread use of facial recognition by police is a good idea, a majority are not convinced such usage would cut crime. Some 57% say crime in the U.S. would stay about the same if the use of facial recognition technology by police becomes widespread and 8% say crime would increase. A third of Americans think crime would decline if police used facial recognition widely.

Majorities say wide use of facial recognition technology would help police find missing persons, solve crimes but also lead to less privacy

Americans see widespread use of facial recognition technology by police as likely to usher in both benefits and risks. In terms of potential benefits, about three-fourths or more say police would probably or definitely find more missing persons (78%) and solve crimes more quickly and efficiently (74%). The public is divided when it comes to crowd control: About half of Americans say if the use of facial recognition technology by police becomes widespread, police would be better able to keep crowds under control, while the other half think this would not happen.

When it comes to potential risks, 69% believe police would probably or definitely be able to track everyone’s location at all times, while 66% say police would use this technology to monitor Black and Hispanic neighborhoods much more often than other neighborhoods. Americans are more divided on the effects facial recognition would have on false arrests. Some 53% of U.S. adults say police probably or definitely would make more false arrests if use of facial recognition technology was widespread among police, while 45% say this probably or definitely would not happen.

There are some notable differences among racial and ethnic groups on these issues, especially when it comes to those who think these impacts definitely would occur. For instance, 48% of Black adults think police definitely would use facial recognition technology to monitor Black and Hispanic neighborhoods much more often than other neighborhoods, compared with 37% of Hispanic adults. About a fifth of White adults (18%) say the same.

Black adults are also particularly likely to think police would make more false arrests if the use of facial recognition technology by police becomes widespread. Some 28% of Black adults say this would definitely happen, followed by 19% of Hispanics. Just 11% of White adults think police would definitely make more false arrests if they widely used facial recognition technology. Across all six items asked about in this survey, Hispanics are consistently more likely than White adults to think each of these potential outcomes definitely would happen.

Majority of Americans say people should assume they are being monitored when they are in public

Notable portions of people’s lives are now being tracked and monitored by police, government agencies, corporations and advertisers. Prior Pew Research Center work finds that a majority of Americans do not think it is possible to go through daily life without the government or companies collecting data about them. Facial recognition technology adds an extra dimension to this issue because surveillance cameras of all kinds can be used to pick up details about what people do in public places and sometimes in stores. A 2016 study out of Georgetown Law found that half of American adults’ faces were already in law enforcement’s facial recognition databases.

In light of these findings, the Center asked people to pick which of these assertions best describes their views: “People should assume they are being monitored when they are in public spaces” or “People should have a right to privacy when they are in public spaces.” Six-in-ten Americans say people should assume they are being monitored when they are in public spaces, while 39% say people should have a right to privacy when they are in public spaces.

Those who think widespread use of facial recognition technology by police is a good idea are more likely to say people should assume they are being monitored in public (71%), compared with those who see this technology as a bad idea for society (46%). People who say they are unsure about the effects of widespread use fall between those who say it’s a good idea and those who say it’s a bad idea, with some 57% saying people should assume they are being monitored when they are in public spaces.

Americans have mixed views on whether use of facial recognition technology will make policing fairer

When considering how use of facial recognition technology may affect the fairness of policing, Americans are divided. Some 34% say the widespread use of this technology by police will make policing more fair, while 25% say it will become less fair. Still, four-in-ten do not think this will make a difference.

Hispanic adults (40%) and White adults (36%) are more likely than Black adults (22%) to say the widespread use of facial recognition technology will make policing more fair. There are also some differences between those who generally have positive or negative feelings about the police’s use of facial recognition technology. For example, Americans who say the use of this technology by police is a good idea for society are far more likely than those who say it is a bad idea to say widespread use of the technology by police will make policing more fair (58% vs. 10%).

The Center asked a more general question of how facial recognition findings should be considered as evidence: “If a facial recognition program said that someone was involved in a crime, should that be good enough evidence for police to arrest them, even if there was a small chance the program was wrong?” A majority of Americans say they do not think a facial recognition match is sufficient cause for arrest. Seven-in-ten say that if a facial recognition program said that someone was involved in a crime, it should not be good enough evidence for police to arrest them. Roughly a quarter of Americans (27%) say that such a program should be good enough evidence for arrest, even if there was a small chance the program was wrong.

Those who say that the use of facial recognition technology by police is a good idea are more likely to say that a facial recognition program should be good enough evidence for police to make an arrest. Some 40% of these adults say this, compared with 15% of those who say that the use of this tech by police is a bad idea.

Americans are more accepting of the idea that police could use facial recognition in places where crowds gather. About six-in-ten adults say it is an acceptable use of this technology by police to scan people as they enter large events like concerts to see who is in the crowd (63%) or to scan people at public protests (61%). Conversely, 68% of adults say it is not acceptable to scan people as they walk down the street. Just 31% say this is an acceptable use of facial recognition technology by police.

Substantial shares say they would find the use of facial recognition by police more acceptable if certain conditions were met. Some 64% say the use of the technology by police would be more acceptable if police officers were trained in how facial recognition systems can make errors in identifying people before they use it. About half (53%) would find the tech use more acceptable if people were notified of the public events and spaces that were scanned for facial images. By comparison, 45% of Americans say the use of facial recognition technology by police would be more acceptable if people without criminal records could opt out of the facial recognition databases. And roughly a quarter (26%) say the use would be less acceptable under this condition.

About half think police departments, federal agencies should play a major role in setting standards for facial recognition use

When asked about who should be setting standards for facial recognition use by the police, roughly half of Americans say the police departments that use this technology (51%) and federal government agencies (49%) should play a major role. Smaller shares say that companies that develop facial recognition technology (41%) and ordinary people (40%) should play a major role in setting standards for how the technology is used by police.

There are differences by party affiliation when it comes to views on the role that the government or police should play in regulating this type of technology. For example, Democrats and those who lean toward the Democratic Party are more likely than Republicans and their leaners to say federal government agencies should play a major role in regulating police use of facial recognition (61% vs. 35%). And 56% of Republicans say police departments using this tech should play a major role in regulating the use, compared with 45% of Democrats.

While the vast majority of Americans say government agencies should play at least a minor role in setting standards for the use of facial recognition by police, there is no clear consensus among the public on their greater concern regarding how far the government will go regulating this technology. Some 47% say the government will go too far regulating the widespread use of facial recognition technology by police, and a similar share (51%) say the government will not go far enough.

However, there are some differences by party affiliation on this question. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say the government will go too far regulating the technology (59% vs. 36%). At the same time, Democrats are especially likely to say the government will not go far enough in their regulation: 62% say this, compared with 40% of Republicans.

Majority opposes facial recognition use by social media sites; about half favor its use by retail stores, apartment buildings

There are a number of other possible uses of facial recognition technology beyond law enforcement applications, and this survey sought public views about several of them. Americans’ views about facial recognition technology vary depending on the application and context.

Roughly half of U.S. adults say they favor the use of facial recognition technology for security purposes, such as retail stores enhancing credit card payment security by confirming account holders at checkout (53%) or apartment buildings tracking who enters or leaves their building (51%).

Conversely, 57% of Americans oppose social media sites automatically identifying people in photos, and about half of Americans say they oppose companies automatically tracking the attendance of their employees.

There are also segments of the population that are not sure whether they oppose or favor these applications. About a fifth of Americans across each of these four applications say they are not sure whether they favor or oppose the use of facial recognition for these purposes.

3. Mixed views about social media companies using algorithms to find false information

About seven-in-ten Americans use social media to connect with others, share aspects of their lives and consume information. The connections and content they encounter on these sites are shaped not just by their own decisions, but also by the algorithms and artificial intelligence technologies that govern many aspects of these online environments. Social media companies use algorithms for a variety of functions on their platforms, including to decide and structure what flow of content users see; figure out what ads a user will like; make recommendations for content users might like; and assist with content moderation like detecting and removing hate speech.

The companies also use these algorithms to scale up efforts to identify false information on their sites – recognizing the pressing challenge of halting the spread of misinformation on their platforms, but also faced with vast amounts of content and the constant emergence of new false claims. While a variety of approaches can be used to find content that does not pass fact-checking standards and predict similar posts, the challenges of modern content moderation often require more efficient and scalable approaches than human review alone.

Pew Research Center’s November survey reveals a public relatively split when it comes to whether algorithms for finding false information on these platforms are good or bad for society at large – and similarly mixed views on these algorithms’ performance and impact. It also finds Republicans particularly opposed to such algorithms, echoing partisan divides in other Center research related to technology and online discourse – from the seriousness of offensive content online to whether tech companies should take steps to restrict false information online in the first place.

Asked about the widespread use of these computer programs by social media companies to find false information on their sites, 38% of U.S. adults think this has been a good idea for society. But 31% say this has been a bad idea, and a similar share say they are not sure.

Companies have taken action on posts they determine contain falsehoods, including adding fact-check labels to misinformation relating to the 2020 presidential election and the coronavirus. Many people say they have seen these downstream impacts of algorithms’ work: About three-quarters of social media users (74%) say they have ever seen information on social media sites that has been flagged or labeled as false.

And three-quarters of adults say they have heard or read at least a little about computer programs used by social media companies to detect misinformation, including 24% who have heard a lot. Yet another 24% say they have heard nothing at all about these issues.

Republicans especially likely to think social media companies’ use of false information-detecting algorithms negatively impacts online environment

Overall, majorities of Americans believe that the algorithms companies use to find false information are not helping the social media information environment and at times might be worsening it. And even with this across-the-aisle agreement, there are stark partisan differences on the four potential impacts the survey explored – two that are positive in nature and two that are negative.

On the negative end, seven-in-ten adults say political viewpoints are definitely or probably being censored on social media sites due to the widespread use of algorithms to detect false information, and a similar share (69%) says that news and information are definitely or probably being wrongly removed from the sites.

Far smaller shares say the widespread use of such algorithms are leading to the two positive outcomes the survey explored. In fact, about six-in-ten (63%) say that their use is not allowing people to have more meaningful conversations on the platforms, and a similar share says it is not making it easier to find trustworthy information.

Those who are most familiar with these algorithms are more likely than those who are least familiar to think they have negative impacts. For example, three-quarters of those who say they have heard or read a lot about them say news and information is being wrongly removed, while six-in-ten of those who have heard nothing at all say this.

Views also vary dramatically by partisanship. While majorities in both major political parties say political censorship and wrongful removal of information are definitely or probably happening as a result of the widespread use of these algorithms, Republicans and those who lean toward the GOP are far more likely than Democrats and leaners to say so, with differences of 28 percentage points on political censorship and 26 points on wrongful removal. This pattern appears in other Center research. For example, even as most Americans said in 2020 that social media companies likely censor political viewpoints, Republicans were especially likely to say so.

At the same time, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say the positive impacts the survey explored are realities. Democrats are twice as likely to say it is getting easier to find trustworthy information on social media sites due to widespread use of algorithms to find false information, and the share of Democrats who say that this is allowing people to have more meaningful conversations is 19 points higher than among their GOP counterparts.

Political party and awareness also color Americans’ views when asked about the broader impact of these algorithms on society. The share of Republicans who say these programs have been a bad idea for society is about 30 points higher than the parallel share of Democrats.

These findings echo double-digit partisan divides found when asking about the role of social media and the companies that run these sites in society more generally. For example, a 2020 Center study found Republicans more likely than Democrats to say technology companies have too much power in the economy, even as majorities across parties said so. In a separate 2020 survey, those who identified with the GOP were also more likely to think social media have a mostly negative impact on the way things are going in the country.

The balance of views also shifts by how much people have heard about the topic. Views lean negative among those who have heard a lot, with about half saying widespread use of these algorithms is a bad idea. Compared with this group, those who have heard a little are less skeptical – a smaller share of them say this is a bad idea, but at the same time they are more likely to express uncertainty. And among those who have heard nothing at all, over half say they are not sure whether it’s a good or bad idea for society. When it comes to formal educational attainment, those with postgraduate degrees stand out in their views – half say these algorithms are a good idea for society.

People’s perceptions of the social media experience may factor into their views about societal impact as well. For example, a majority of Americans say people have at least a little control over the things they see on social media sites, but just one-in-ten say people have a lot of control. And a third of adults say users have no control at all. Previous Center work has also found this perceived lack of user control in other social media contexts – from the mix of news people see to what appears in their feeds.

Those who think users have no control over the social media content they see are particularly likely to say algorithms for detecting false information are a bad idea for society. Some 41% of this group say social media companies’ widespread use of such programs is a bad idea – about twice as high as the share who say so (20%) among those who think users have a lot of control and 11 points higher compared with those who say users have a little control (30% of this group say use of the programs is a bad idea for society).

Majorities say decisions about false information on social media should be made with some human input and algorithms should favor accuracy over speed

Even as social media companies work to improve the accuracy, clarity and efficiency of their algorithms, some experts say the programs are vulnerable to mistakes and bias. Others argue that even social media firms do not fully understand what their algorithms do. Yet the alternative of human reviewers poses challenges as well – from the sheer volume of posts to the potential harm to the reviewers themselves.

This survey probed three key tensions that relate to the quality of the decisions made by these algorithms: How Americans perceive algorithmic decisions compared with decisions made by people, how important it is to include diverse perspectives in the creation of algorithms and whether they should prioritize speed or accuracy.

A majority of Americans say decisions about what is false on social media should be made with some human input – that is, by a mix of both people and computer programs. About a fifth say they should be mostly made by people, and just 6% say they should be mostly made by computer programs.

However, people are split when asked whether computers or humans do a better job finding false information. The largest share say they are not sure; another quarter say they do about the same job, while about one-in-five each say computers do a worse job (22%) or a better job (19%).

Views on relative performance vary by awareness of these algorithms – nearly half (45%) of those who have seen or heard nothing say they are not sure what does a better job, compared with 30% among those who have heard a little and 22% of those who have heard a lot. At the same time, one-third of those who have heard a lot say computer programs do a worse job than humans, versus 21% of those who have heard a little and 14% of those who have heard nothing.

Human judgment can make its way into assessments about what information is false on social media via fact-checker judgments, crowdsourced labeling of false information and review processes in place for contested decisions or to judge context. Even when decisions are made primarily by algorithms, various steps in creating these programs – including using fact-checker judgments to “train” computer programs – can introduce human influence into the process.

The resulting potential for algorithms to also codify bias has been increasingly in the public eye. For example, recently released documents describe concerns with programs designed to detect hate speech failing to protect Black people from harassment, and Black social media users have expressed frustration over content being flagged as inappropriate, mistakenly or intentionally. Other investigations have focused on whether algorithms promote some political viewpoints over others amid widely perceived censorship by social media companies. When it comes to the public’s views, a majority of Americans said in 2018 that computer programs always reflect the biases of their creators, though 40% thought it possible to make decisions free from human bias.

Some have pointed to the lack of meaningful diversity in the technology companies that create and use these programs as one contributing factor. When asked about who companies should include at the algorithmic design stage, notable shares of Americans say including members of a range of groups is important. About six-in-ten or more say it is extremely or very important that social media companies include people of different racial and ethnic groups (67%), political viewpoints (65%) and genders (63%) when creating computer programs to find false information. In each case, about four-in-ten Americans say it is extremely important to include these groups.

Those who have heard at least a little about the use of computer programs by social media companies to find false information on their sites place more importance on diversity in algorithmic design than do those who have heard nothing at all. And partisans differ dramatically in how important they view including people of different racial, ethnic and gender groups to be, with Democrats being more likely than Republicans to say these things are extremely or very important.

Women are more likely than men to say that including people of different genders is extremely or very important (67% vs. 58%), and Black adults (73%) are more likely than White (65%) or Hispanic adults (63%) to say the same when it comes to people of different racial and ethnic groups. There is little difference by political party in the importance placed on diversity of political viewpoints at the creation stage of these algorithms.

(The survey also sought Americans’ opinions about whether the experiences and views of various groups are taken into account when artificial intelligence programs are created; these varying perspectives are covered in Chapter 1.)

Finally, the survey explored Americans’ views of the tension between the speed with which decisions can be made versus the accuracy of these decisions. Fully 69% of Americans say social media companies should prioritize accurate decisions, even if some false information stays up on sites for a longer period of time – while 28% say they should give priority to quick decisions, even if some accurate information gets mistakenly removed.

Compared with accuracy, relatively small shares in both parties say speed should be prioritized; however, the share of Democrats who say so is 20 points higher than the share of Republicans who say the same (38% vs. 18%). Women are also more likely than men to say speed should be the priority (32% vs. 24%), as are Black (41%) or Hispanic (32%) adults compared with White adults (24%).

53% worry government will not go far enough in regulating social media companies’ algorithms for finding false information

Whistleblower testimony has reignited debate about regulating the algorithms social media companies use. At the same time, federal agencies are pushing social media companies to disclose more about the data they collect and how their algorithms work. While some have called for more regulation of algorithms generally, there is still debate about how this should be accomplished – in part because of internet and free speech issues that could eventually end up in the courts.

This survey asked Americans about the role they think three key groups should play in setting standards for algorithms used by social media companies. Some 51% say the social media companies that develop these computer programs should play a major role in setting standards for the use of algorithms for finding false information. Nearly half (46%) say social media users should play a major role in setting these standards. And four-in-ten say the same about federal government agencies.

Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say federal government agencies should play a major role in setting these standards (51% vs. 27%). They are also more likely to say that the social media companies themselves should play a major role (58% vs. 42%).

Other Center research shows that over the past several years Americans have grown slightly more open to the general idea of the U.S. government taking steps to restrict false information online. About half said in 2021 that the government should do this, even if it limits freedom of information, with Democrats far more likely to say this than Republicans.

When asked what their greater concern is in terms of regulating social media companies’ use of these algorithms, 53% of Americans say it is that the government will not go far enough – while 44% are more worried the government will go too far. These views again vary by party, with Democrats more likely than Republicans to be concerned that the government will not go far enough.

Americans also do not have much confidence in social media companies’ appropriate use of these algorithms. Fully 72% of Americans have little or no confidence that social media companies will use computer programs appropriately to determine which information on their sites is false, including three-in-ten who have no confidence at all. On the other hand, just 3% of Americans have a great deal of confidence that social media companies will do this.

Partisans diverge dramatically in these respects. Majorities across both parties are not confident, but Republicans are much more likely to have little or no confidence than Democrats – a difference of 21 percentage points.

This pattern also appears in previous Center work on Americans’ confidence in social media companies to determine which posts should be labeled as inaccurate or misleading in the first place – algorithmically or not. Republicans stood out in their lack of confidence, according to the June 2020 survey.

Majorities of Americans oppose use of algorithms for final say over mortgages, jobs, parole, medical treatments

The basic principles behind the algorithms that social media companies use to detect certain types of content on their sites are also used in other contexts throughout society – sometimes with far-reaching implications that can affect people’s lives and livelihoods.

Majorities of Americans oppose the use of algorithms to make final decisions about which patients should get a medical treatment (70%), which people should be good candidates for parole (64%), which job applicants should move on to a next round of interviews (60%) or which people should be approved for mortgages (56%). About one-in-five or fewer favor each of these ideas. And roughly a quarter or fewer say they are not sure.

Proponents of algorithms sometimes make the case that automated systems can reduce discrimination. But the issue has been debated widely, especially when it comes to race and ethnicity, with others saying algorithms themselves can be inherently discriminatory in settings from the criminal justice system to the job market.

While small shares of adults across demographic groups favor computer programs making the final decisions in each case, there are some modest differences by race and ethnicity.

Hispanic or Black adults are more likely than their White counterparts to favor algorithmic final decisions in three of these contexts –medical treatments, job interviews and parole. Hispanic adults are also more likely than either Black or White adults to say this about mortgages.

4. Americans cautious about the deployment of driverless cars

A prototype driverless car on demonstration around the roads of East London in 2017. (Philip Toscano/PA Images via Getty Images)

Driverless cars may evoke images from sci-fi films to Saturday morning cartoons, but the prospect is hardly remote now. While Americans today cannot purchase a fully autonomous vehicle, there are some cars that already operate with minimal human assistance and others that are expected to be able to run without human drivers in the future. Several companies like Google’s parent company Alphabet and Amazon have been piloting these vehicles in cities around the U.S. for years.

These advancements have the potential to create both new opportunities and less desirable outcomes. Proponents say driverless vehicles could reduce the stress of commuting, lower the number of accidents and make traveling more sustainable. But critics have raised a number of concerns – ranging from safety risks, to cost, to their potential to hurt the environment by making car travel easier.

This technology has also generated pressing questions related to work, human agency and ethics: How will this impact people who drive for a living? Are Americans willing to give up control to a machine? And whose safety should be prioritized in a potential life-or-death situation?

When posed these questions – and more – the survey reveals that larger shares of U.S. adults think the widespread use of driverless passenger vehicles is a bad idea for society than think it is a good idea (44% vs. 26%). Additionally, 29% say they are not sure if this would be a good or bad idea for society.

A majority of Americans are also wary about riding in an autonomous vehicle. Roughly six-in-ten adults (63%) say they would not want to ride in a driverless passenger vehicle if they had the opportunity, while a much smaller share (37%) say they would want to do this.

Interest in riding in a driverless vehicle varies across demographic groups, with age being one of the most notable differences. Adults under the age of 50 are about twice as likely as those 50 and older to say they would ride in this type of car (47% vs. 25%).

There are also differences by gender and educational attainment. Some 46% of men say they would want to ride in a driverless car, compared with 27% of women. Additionally, men under the age of 50 stand out for their desire to ride in an autonomous vehicle: 59% of this group say they would want to do this, while those shares drop to about one-third or less among women under 50 and both men and women 50 and older. And those with a bachelor’s or advanced degree are more likely than those with less formal education to say they would ride in an autonomous vehicle. For example, roughly half of those with a postgraduate degree say they would like to ride in one of these cars, compared with three-in-ten of those who have completed high school or less.

Most adults have heard or read at least a little about driverless cars (88%), including 26% who say they have heard or read a lot. Only 12% of adults say they have heard nothing at all about driverless cars. And those who have heard more about driverless cars are also more likely to want to ride in them. Some 54% of those who have heard a lot say they want to ride in driverless cars, compared with 32% of those who have heard a little and about one-in-five who have heard nothing at all.

Many Americans are not only reluctant to ride in driverless cars, some are also concerned about sharing the road with one. In total, 45% of Americans say they would not feel comfortable sharing the road with driverless vehicles if use of them became widespread, including 18% who would not feel comfortable at all. Smaller shares indicate they would be extremely (7%) or very (14%) comfortable sharing the road with autonomous vehicles.

As was true with wanting to ride in a driverless vehicle, men are more likely than women to say they would be extremely or very comfortable sharing the road with these types of cars (27% vs. 15%). Conversely, 54% of women say they would be uncomfortable with this compared with 35% of men. There are also gaps by age, with adults under 50 being more comfortable with sharing the road with driverless cars than those 50 and older. And those with a bachelor’s degree or more are more likely than those with less formal education to say the same.

A 2017 Pew Research Center survey also measured the public’s views about riding in or sharing the road with autonomous vehicles. While figures are not directly comparable across these two surveys due to changes in question wording, there are clear patterns that emerge in both. Then, as now, a majority of Americans were not interested in riding in a driverless vehicle, and many were wary of sharing the road with vehicles. And those who are more open to this technology continue to skew younger, male or college-educated.

Those who have heard a lot about driverless cars more likely than those who have heard nothing to think they are a good idea

Many of the groups who are more likely to say they would ride in a driverless vehicle are also more likely to say these cars are a good idea for society. For example, adults ages 18 to 49 are more likely than those 50 and older to say driverless cars are a good idea (33% vs. 19%). Men and those with more formal education are also more likely to perceive these cars as a good idea for society.

Those who have heard a lot about driverless cars (45%) are about twice as likely as those who have heard a little (22%) to say they’re a good idea, and about four times as likely as those who have heard nothing at all (11%) to say the same.

Relatedly, those who think driverless cars are a good idea on a societal level are also more likely to want to ride in one themselves. Most adults who say driverless cars are a good idea for society say they would want to ride in one (86%), while most who see these vehicles as a bad idea say they would not want to ride in one (89%).

Public foresees a mix of both positive and negative outcomes if driverless cars become widely used

Americans were asked about several possible outcomes that may occur if driverless cars become widely used, and the findings show the public thinks there could be both pros and cons.

When it comes to possible positive outcomes, 72% say that older adults and people with disabilities would definitely or probably be able to live more independently with widespread use of driverless cars, while 56% say getting from place to place would definitely or probably be less stressful. Still, about four-in-ten do not think autonomous vehicles would alleviate the stress of going places.

On the more negative side, clear majorities say that the widespread use of driverless cars would definitely or probably lead to many people who make a living by driving others or delivering things with passenger vehicles losing their jobs (83%) or that computer systems in the vehicles would be easily hacked in ways that put safety at risk (76%).

Those who generally think driverless cars would be a good idea for society are more likely than those who think they would be a bad idea to say positive outcomes would occur with widespread use. Roughly half of adults who think these vehicles are a good idea say older adults and people with disabilities would definitely be able to live more independently, compared with 8% of those who say driverless cars would be a bad idea. Similarly, only 14% of those who think driverless cars are a good idea say the computer systems would definitely be easily hacked, compared with 37% of those who think these cars are a bad idea.

When asked about the potential impact that the widespread use of driverless passenger vehicles could have on income inequality, 46% say these vehicles would increase the gap between higher- and lower-income Americans, while much smaller shares (8%) expect the economic gaps to decrease. Still, 46% think these disparities would not change if the use of autonomous vehicles became widespread.

Mixed views on whether driverless vehicles would increase or decrease traffic deaths, injuries

A central question about the deployment of autonomous passenger vehicles is whether these cars would help reduce traffic accidents or instead lead to more injuries or fatalities. This survey finds that 39% of Americans say the widespread use of driverless vehicles would decrease the number of people killed or injured in traffic accidents, and 27% believe traffic deaths and injuries would increase. Another 31% say it would not make much difference.

A 2017 Center survey also found mixed views on whether driverless cars would reduce traffic injuries or deaths. The current figures cannot be directly compared to the previous survey due to changes in question wording, but it does highlight that even with advancements and investments in driverless vehicle technology, the public remains divided on the impact these cars will have on traffic safety.

About four-in-ten are unsure if driverless car systems should prioritize safety of passengers or those outside vehicle if an accident is unavoidable

One of the most well-documented debates regarding driverless cars centers on the “trolley problem.” It is the ethical dilemma of whether a trolley driver who is on a collision course with pedestrians should take action and switch tracks to save several people, even if it results in killing just one person, or if the driver should do nothing in order to spare the life of the single pedestrian, thereby dooming several others.

Software developers, industry leaders and safety experts must grapple with the modern version of this question of whose safety should be the priority in the event of a coming accident involving an autonomous vehicle. This is a question that some experts themselves are unsure of how to answer, while others critique the usefulness of this framing altogether.

In this survey, larger shares say that in the case of an unavoidable accident, the computer system guiding the driverless car should prioritize the safety of the vehicle’s passengers, rather than those outside of the vehicle (40% vs. 18%). But some are also uncertain of what these systems should be programmed to do: 41% report being unsure whose safety should be prioritized in the case of an unavoidable accident.

Who should have a role in setting driverless passenger vehicle standards, and to what degree?

The U.S. Department of Transportation has been mapping safety standards and plans for introducing autonomous vehicles onto the nation’s roadways. Accordingly, this survey explored people’s views about the scope of those regulations and which groups should be involved in setting the standards.

There is strong agreement among Americans that the standards used to test the safety of regular vehicles are inadequate when it comes to driverless ones. A clear majority of Americans (87%) say driverless vehicles should be tested using a higher standard than is used for regular vehicles. Only 11% believe that existing standards used for regular vehicles would be enough to ensure the safety and effectiveness of autonomous vehicles.

In addition to understanding the types of standards people want to see, Americans were also asked to weigh in on the level of involvement they would like to see certain groups play when it comes to setting these standards for how driverless vehicles are used.

Some 91% of Americans say the companies that develop driverless passenger vehicles should play a role in setting standards for how these vehicles are used. And 62% say they should play a major role.

Similar shares say the individuals who use these driverless vehicles and the federal government should have a major role in this process (54% and 53%, respectively). There are some differences by party when it comes to how much of a role the federal government should have in setting standards: 66% of Democrats and those who lean toward the Democratic Party say it should have a major role, compared with 38% of Republicans and Republican leaners who say the same. And 20% of Republicans say the federal government should have no role at all.

Meanwhile, the public is less enthused about having car dealerships that sell driverless passenger vehicles playing a major role in setting standards – with 36% saying they should have no role at all.

When asked to share their views about the level of regulation that may be in store for autonomous vehicles, 55% say their greater concern is that the government will not go far enough in regulating the use of driverless passenger vehicles, while a smaller share (43%) says the government will go too far.

Roughly seven-in-ten Democrats (69%) say their greater concern is that the government will not go far enough in regulating the use of driverless vehicles in the event it becomes widespread. Republicans’ views tilt in the opposite direction: 59% say they are more concerned that government will go too far in regulating these cars.

A majority of Americans say some ideas would make the use of driverless vehicles more acceptable

While a large share of the public is wary of riding in or sharing the road with autonomous vehicles, people say there are steps that could be taken to make the use of driverless cars more acceptable to them.

About seven-in-ten Americans say driverless passenger vehicles would be more acceptable if regular reports about the number of accidents caused by them were required (71%), if autonomous cars were labeled as driverless in order to be easily identified (70%) and if such cars were required to travel in dedicated lanes (67%). Some 57% say use of driverless cars would be more acceptable if someone in the vehicle was required to have a driver’s license. Still, a third of Americans say someone having a license would make no difference in how they view driverless cars.

Mixed views on deploying driverless technology in some other kinds of vehicles; opinions on using this software in 18-wheelers are negative

Driverless technology systems can be employed for a variety of purposes. And Americans have reservations about automating other kinds of transit – especially 18-wheeler trucks. Roughly six-in-ten (59%) say they oppose the use of technology used to operate driverless passenger vehicles in these trucks, with just 20% in favor of this.

Sentiment regarding using these technologies in other modes of transportation is somewhat more divided. While 43% say they oppose the use of driverless technology in public buses, 34% are in favor of this. And when it comes to views about driverless delivery vehicles or taxis and ride-sharing vehicles, about four-in-ten each are in favor of using the technology for this purpose. Still, about one-third are opposed to this.

Across each of the types of vehicles measured in this survey, there is some level of uncertainty about how they feel about the technology. For example, 25% of Americans are unsure if the technology used in driverless passenger vehicles should be used in taxis and ride-sharing vehicles.

5. What Americans think about possibilities ahead for human enhancement

The prospect of transformative “enhancement” of human abilities has tantalized and inspired invention and innovation through the ages.

Human enhancement practices encompass a wide range of techniques to augment or improve people’s physical, mental and reproductive capabilities. Laser eye surgery, off-label use of drugs to improve concentration and mental agility, pacemakers, organ transplants, dietary supplements and wearable devices, such as smart watches or augmented reality glasses, are seen as tools and techniques in wide use today to enhance human capabilities.

Emerging techniques now in use or being tested are generally focused on addressing therapeutic needs, restoring a person’s abilities due to injury, disease or a health condition. Futurists have long pointed to the potential for such techniques to be used more broadly. The route to dramatic changes in human abilities is being fueled by the convergence of innovations in biotechnology, nanotechnology, information technology, artificial intelligence and other fields.

Pew Research Center’s study is focused on public attitudes about future-oriented options for human enhancement that would expand the boundaries of human abilities. These technologies are not currently in wide use but could ultimately hold far-ranging implications for humanity. The findings provide an early lens into public thinking and expectations about these developments. As such, they address some of the key ethical questions American society faces in deciding what changes to human abilities people would find acceptable or unacceptable – and why.

The goals of human enhancing technologies are generally met with more excitement than concern, particularly when it comes to improving health

One of the most important takeaways from the new Pew Research Center survey is the variety of reactions to potential changes to human abilities depending on their purpose or goal – with changes holding therapeutic potential widely embraced. Even for goals that are widely supported, however, certain circumstances under which these techniques might be used give people pause.

The Center asked survey respondents how they would feel about making changes in human abilities, without going into detail on how such changes would be achieved. Across this set of six, public excitement is generally higher than concern, although a notable share say they have an equal mix of both reactions.

Two-thirds of U.S. adults say they would be at least somewhat excited about the possibility of changing human capabilities to prevent serious diseases or health conditions (including 41% who would be very excited). Just 11% say they would be at least somewhat concerned and 22% say they would be equally excited and concerned about this development.

Other possible enhancements draw more excitement than concern, but by narrower margins and with greater shares expressing an equal mix of both reactions. For instance:

• Cognitive enhancement: Nearly half of Americans (47%) say they would be at least somewhat excited about techniques that allow some people to “far more quickly and accurately process information.”
• Auditory enhancement: More Americans say they would be excited (47%) than concerned (24%) about techniques that allow some people “to hear sounds far beyond what a typical person can hear today.” About three-in-ten (29%) say they would respond to such developments with an equal mix of excitement and concern.
• Physical strength: Improvements to physical capabilities garner a similar response: 44% of Americans say they would be excited about new techniques that would allow some people greatly increased strength for lifting heavy objects, 27% say they would be concerned and 28% would have an equal mix of both reactions.
• Visual enhancement: 41% of Americans say they would be at least somewhat excited by developments that would enhance human vision, allowing some people to see shapes and patterns in crowded spaces to a degree far beyond what is typical today. A larger share say either that they are concerned by (28%) or that they have a mixed reaction to this possible enhancement (31%).
• Radical life extension: 41% say they would greet the possibility of a major change to the human lifespan with excitement, a concept called radical life extension because it would slow the aging process and allow the average person to live decades long. Three-in-ten say they would have an equal mix of positive and negative response to this prospect, and a similar share (29%) would primarily be concerned.

Men and those with higher levels of education are generally more supportive of these potential changes to human abilities. Younger adults, ages 18 to 29, stand out as generally more embracing than older age groups of these potential changes, particularly for the idea of enhancing physical strength and changing visual abilities. See details in Appendix.

Many Americans hesitant or undecided about the virtues of biomedical interventions to change cognitive abilities or the course of human health

To better understand the contours of public opinion about human enhancement, the Center survey also asked respondents to consider three possibilities in more detail. These future-oriented scenarios capture public expectations and reactions to promising technologies that could bring dramatic changes for cognitive abilities, human health and physical strength.

One high-profile option stems from developments in neurotechnology that would directly connect the brain to a computer interface. The survey includes a series of questions about the potential to augment people’s cognitive abilities, allowing them to far more quickly and accurately process information, by surgically implanting a computer chip in the brain.

A second technique, stemming from discoveries in biotechnology, focuses on the potential use of gene editing for babies in a way that could alter the trajectory of human experience with disease. While gene editing is increasingly used to address therapeutic needs today, in the future gene-editing techniques could change the DNA of an embryo in a way that greatly reduces a baby’s risk of developing serious diseases or health conditions over their lifetime.

A third approach to human enhancement featured in the survey is the potential use of wearable devices, in this case robotic exoskeletons to greatly increase strength for lifting in manual labor jobs. There are several types of robotic exoskeletons in use and in development today; the survey focused on devices with an integrated artificial intelligence computer system which uses sensor data to help guide its use.

While by no means exhaustive of the possibilities, these three scenarios underscore the variety of forms that human enhancement can take.

No more than about half of Americans say they, personally, would want any of these potential enhancements for themselves or for their baby.

Nearly eight-in-ten (78%) say they would opt against computer chip implants to enhance cognitive functioning for themselves. And 49% of Americans think they would be disinclined to have gene editing for their own baby to greatly reduce their chances of developing serious diseases or health conditions.

Even so, many Americans foresee a world where most people would feel social pressure to get these enhancements should they become widespread. Six-in-ten Americans say that most people would feel pressure to get a brain chip implant to augment cognitive function should implanted devices of this sort become widespread. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of the public believes most parents would feel pressure to get gene editing for their baby if such techniques to greatly reduce a baby’s risk for serious diseases or other conditions became widespread (as do 68% of those with a child under age 18 at home).

While people make important distinctions among these future enhancement techniques, no more than a third say any of the three would be a “good idea for society.” The remainder express caution or are uncertain of their views. People are especially negative about the potential use of brain chip implants to augment cognitive function. Many more say this is a bad idea than a good one for society (56% vs. 13%). Still, some three-in-ten (31%) do not take a stand on this matter.

One factor connected with the predominantly hesitant reactions Americans bring to these possibilities is skepticism about whether each would bring broad-scale improvements for people.

About four-in-ten Americans (39%) foresee a future in which widespread use of gene editing to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of serious diseases or conditions would make people’s overall quality of life better; a majority says people’s quality of life would be roughly the same (40%) or worse (18%), overall.

Roughly a third of Americans (32%) think the widespread use of robotic exoskeletons with built-in AI to greatly increase strength for manual labor would lead to better working conditions. The remainder are closely divided between whether working conditions would be about the same (36%) or worse (31%) as a result.

Americans are particularly skeptical that the widespread use of a computer chip implant in the brain to increase the speed and accuracy of cognitive processing would lead to improvements in people’s judgment and decision-making; 24% say it would, while 42% say judgment quality would be no different and 31% say it would be worse.

People’s familiarity with developments in cognitive and physical enhancement remains limited

One factor in public attitudes around human enhancement could be simply that these are new ideas and remain largely unfamiliar ones for a majority of Americans.

No more than one-in-ten U.S. adults say they have heard or read “a lot” about any of the three concepts asked about in the survey.

Comparisons with a 2016 Center survey, though based on slightly different descriptions of these ideas, suggest that public awareness of brain chip implants and gene editing to greatly reduce the risk of serious diseases or health conditions has not grown substantially over the past five years.

Familiarity is a strong factor in Americans’ views about the use of robotic exoskeletons with built-in AI, and it is at least modestly associated with views of gene editing and brain chip implants. For example, those who have heard or read at least a little about robotic exoskeletons with built-in AI are largely of the mind that their widespread use would be a good (48%) rather than a bad (23%) thing for society. In contrast, people who have heard nothing about such exoskeletons are closely divided over their potential effect (22% say this would be good, 26% say bad) and many are uncertain (52%).

These findings are in line with a common argument that public reception for new scientific and technological developments is often cautious simply because of their newness. Advocates often posit that as people’s familiarity with these developments increases, so too does public acceptance of them. It’s not clear that this is always the case, however. History suggests that the link between familiarity and public response can go in either a positive or negative direction.

The Center survey includes at least one notable case in point. The use of algorithms by social media companies to detect false information posted on their sites is now at least modestly familiar to a majority of Americans. Still, among the roughly one-in-four people who say they know a lot about these algorithms, more say they represent a bad (47%) rather than a good idea for society (40%). People with “a little” awareness of such computer programs lean positive, as do those who say they have heard or read nothing about these kinds of computer programs.

Half or more express concern that brain chip implants to process more quickly, gene editing to prevent disease would be meddling with nature

One of the key ethical questions about scientific and technological breakthroughs to enhance the mind and body concerns whether Americans see such developments as moving beyond limits set by God, nature or reason. To capture a sense of this, the Center asked people whether they saw each possibility as a change in line with other ways humans have tried to better ourselves over time or if, instead, it would be “crossing a line” we should not cross and meddling with nature.

Concern about the use of brain chip implants is particularly strong by this measure: 63% of Americans say that if implanting computer chips to speed up information processing becomes widespread, they would feel it was “meddling with nature.” Fewer (35%) take the position that this would be in line with ways humans have tried to better ourselves over the millennia.

Americans lean in the same direction in thinking about the potential widespread use of gene editing for babies to greatly reduce their risk for serious diseases: 52% say they would see this as crossing a line we should not cross; 46% say this would be no different than other ways humans have tried to better ourselves over time.

Views of robotic exoskeletons with a built-in AI system tilt in the opposite direction. A 62% majority of Americans say the widespread use of such robotic exoskeletons would be no different than other ways humans have tried to better ourselves over time.

Americans with higher levels of religious commitment are especially likely to see all three potential options to change human abilities as something that would be meddling with nature.

For instance, about eight-in-ten adults high in religious commitment (81%) say the widespread use of brain chip implants to improve cognitive processing of information would be meddling with nature and crossing a line we should not cross. Half of those low in religious commitment agree. (Levels of religious commitment are based on the importance or salience of religion in a person’s life and their frequency of prayer and attendance at religious services.)

Similarly, those high in religious commitment are far more likely to see the potential use of gene editing for babies for enhancement purposes as something what would be meddling with nature and crossing a line we should not cross (72% vs. 26% who say it would not differ from other forms of self-improvement).

The 2016 Center survey looking at potential enhancements from brain chip implants and gene editing also found wide differences in views about this issue across levels of religious commitment.

Religious differences arise in a range of views about these three potential enhancements in the new survey. For example, people high in religious commitment are far less likely to say they would personally want to use a robotic exoskeleton (36% say this, vs. 59% of those low in religious commitment).

Across the six potential goals for human enhancement mentioned in the survey, people high in religious commitment are about 15 to 20 percentage points less inclined to say they would be very or somewhat excited about the prospect. See the Appendix for details.

People would be more open to technological enhancements in human abilities if ways to limit scope, increase human agency were in place

Even while Americans’ views about three proposed avenues for human enhancement often strike a cautious note, majorities see promise for each if mitigating steps were in place that increased human agency over the nature of these changes.

One potential avenue for cognitive enhancement – brain chip implants – was met with a collective wariness. Yet, a majority of Americans say that brain chip implants would be more acceptable to them if people could turn on and off the effects (59%) and if implanting the devices did not require surgery (53%).

Similar patterns emerge as people think about the potential use of gene editing for babies. The need for such genetic modifications to be done on an embryo, and thus based on the consent of parents acting on behalf of a child, can raise additional ethical as well as legal concerns. Roughly half of U.S. adults say gene editing to prevent the risk of serious diseases or conditions would be more acceptable if it were used only for adults, who could give consent to the procedure (53%).

About half (49%) of the public says gene editing for babies that allowed people to choose which diseases or conditions are affected would be more acceptable. A similar share (48%) says such gene editing would be more acceptable if it would not be passed on to future generations.

Scientists who specialize in genome-editing technology have long raised the alarm about the potential uses of these technologies in ways that could change the human gene pool, known as germline editing. An alternative, of less concern to bioethicists, involves genetic modification only in somatic cells, that would not be passed on to future offspring.

On the idea of robotic exoskeletons – external devices that could be removed – the public is more accepting when given the option of having restrictions in place for how and when they could be used. For example, two-thirds (68%) of Americans say that robotic exoskeletons with built-in AI systems would be more acceptable if licensing for appropriate use of these devices were required. And 59% say that limits on how employers could use these devices for manual labor jobs, specifically if they were used to enhance worker safety rather than increase worker productivity, would make them more acceptable.

Americans are open to each of three potentially enhancing techniques for uses focused on addressing disease or physical, cognitive limitations

People make clear distinctions among goals behind the possible uses of three proposed techniques to alter human abilities.

Asked to consider the potential use of robotic exoskeletons, genetic modifications, and brain chip implants for a range of purposes, majorities of U.S. adults embrace these techniques when they would be aimed at helping people with physical, health or cognitive limitations.

Consider the following:

• 79% favor the use of robotic exoskeletons with built-in AI systems to improve the quality of life for people with physical limitations.
• 77% favor the use of computer chip implants in the brain to allow increased movement for people who are paralyzed.
• 71% favor using gene editing in order to treat diseases or health conditions a person is currently experiencing.

But there are clear limits to public support around these techniques. About three-quarters of Americans (74%) oppose the potential use of gene editing to enhance a baby’s physical attractiveness. While many experts forecast a future where robotic exoskeletons are commonplace in people’s everyday fitness routines, roughly half of the public (49%) opposes the idea of using a robotic exoskeleton to give people increased strength for recreational activities.

And the potential use of computer chip implants to “read people’s minds” – allowing them to search the internet solely by thinking – elicits more opposition than support, with 31% uncertain of their views about this possibility.

6. Public cautious about enhancing cognitive function using computer chip implants in the brain

The idea of computer chip implants in the brain may seem futuristic to some, but this development could be widely available in the years to come. At this early stage of development, Americans are generally negative toward the idea of widespread use of computer chip implants in the brain to enhance cognitive function, and few say they would want this for themselves.

Devices that interface with the neural system are currently in use and development only for those with a therapeutic need. For instance, cochlear implants are used to help people with hearing difficulties. And some patients with Parkinson’s disease have a device implanted in their brain to send electrical pulses that control tremors and improve motor control.

Medical researchers and device developers aim to use brain chip implants to help people with paralysis. Researchers at Ohio State University and Battelle Memorial Institute have used brain implants to help restore hand movement and a sense of touch in patients with severe spinal cord injuries. And a brain implant was recently used to translate the thoughts of a patient with a severe spinal cord injury into text with a very high degree of accuracy.

One future use of brain chip implants could be to augment brain functioning for people even without therapeutic need. By 56% to 13%, far more U.S. adults say the widespread use of computer chip implants in the brain to more quickly and accurately process information would be a bad idea than good idea for society; 31% say they are not sure if this would be a good or bad idea for society.

Americans express limited desire for a computer chip brain implant for themselves: 78% say they would not want a computer chip implant that would allow them to better process information if it were available to them. Just 20% say they would want this.

A 2016 Center survey asked about the idea of using brain chip implants to enhance cognitive function using a similar though not identical description. Five years ago, most Americans were also largely wary of this possibility. Two-thirds thought they would not want a surgically implanted brain chip for a “much improved ability to concentrate and process information.” And more Americans said they were at least somewhat worried about this possibility than said they were enthusiastic about the idea.

Even so, the new survey finds six-in-ten U.S. adults think that if brain chip use became widespread, most people would feel pressure to get an implant. A smaller share (38%) thinks most people would not feel pressure to get this.

One factor in these negative reactions: Most Americans are skeptical that widespread use of brain chips would improve people’s judgment and decision-making. Just 24% say the widespread use of brain chip implants to improve cognitive function would make people’s decision-making better. A much larger share says it would either make people’s judgment and decision-making worse (31%) or that it would be about the same as now (42%).

Negative views of using brain chip implants for enhancement are common across demographic groups

Limited enthusiasm for the widespread use of brain chip implants can be seen across demographic groups, with small shares saying this would be a good idea for society.

Men are somewhat more favorable about this idea than women. Among women, 61% say computer chip implants in the brain would be a bad idea for society, while just 6% say it would be a good idea. The balance of opinion tilts in the same direction among men, but by a somewhat narrower margin (50% see it as a bad idea vs. 20% good idea).

Just 5% of Americans say they have heard a lot and 32% a little about this idea. This group leans strongly to the viewpoint that this would be a bad rather than a good idea for society (55% vs. 19% saying good idea). Another quarter of this group say they are not sure.

Religion also plays a role in views about this idea. People with a high level of religious commitment (based on a three-item index of religious importance, frequency of religious service attendance and frequency of prayer) say widespread use of computer chip implants in the brain would be a bad idea for society by an overwhelming margin (68% to 7%). By comparison, 44% of those low in religious commitment say this would be a bad idea for society, while 20% say it would be a good idea and 35% say they’re not sure.

Differences are also seen in the degree to which men and women, those more and less familiar with this idea and those with higher and lower levels of religious commitment think about whether this is something they would want. Still, no more than a third of Americans in any of these groups say they would want a brain chip implant for this purpose themselves if it were available. And the youngest and oldest adults are about equally likely to say they would want a brain chip implant after controlling for factors such as religious commitment, education and gender. (See the Appendix for more details.)

Similar patterns by gender, familiarity and religious commitment are also seen in views of the other two types of human enhancement in the survey: using gene editing for babies to enhance health and in the potential use of robotic exoskeletons with built-in artificial intelligence systems to enhance physical strength.

Most Americans see use of brain chip implants to improve processing as meddling with nature and crossing a line

There is a long history of efforts to develop tools and techniques that would improve human abilities. When asked which statement better describes their views about the widespread use of brain chip implants to more quickly and accurately process information, 63% of Americans say this idea “is meddling with nature and crosses a line we should not cross.” Far fewer (35%) say that “as humans we are always trying to better ourselves and this is no different.”

However, there are sizable differences in views on this question by religious commitment and across religious groups. An overwhelming majority of highly religious Americans say the widespread use of computer chip implants is meddling with nature (81%). Those with low religious commitment are closely divided: Half say brain chips are meddling with nature, while 49% say brain chips for improved cognitive function are no different than other efforts to improve ourselves.

A large majority of White evangelical Protestants (79%) think the widespread use of computer chip implants would be meddling with nature and crossing a line we should not cross. By contrast, 61% of atheists and 55% of agnostics say the widespread use of computer chip implants would reflect, instead, that we are always trying to better ourselves and this idea is no different. (See the Appendix for more details.)

Public anticipates negative impacts from widespread use of brain chips for enhancement and worries about economic inequality, cybersecurity

Asked to think about possible societal impacts from the widespread use of brain chips for improved cognitive function, the public sees both pros and cons. However, on balance, potential negative impacts resonate more strongly with the public than positive ones.

About eight-in-ten U.S. adults (78%) say computer chip implants in the brain would definitely or probably be used before we fully understand how they affect people’s health; just 20% say this would definitely or probably not happen. The 2016 Center survey, using similar though not identical wording, found a similar share (74%) saying it was likely that implanted devices in the brain would be used before we fully understand the effects.

The current survey finds a large majority (70%) also views it as likely that the widespread use of computer chip implants in the brain to improve cognitive function would go too far in eliminating natural differences between people.

On the positive side, 62% think the widespread use of brain chips would definitely or probably make people more productive at their jobs, and 59% say they would likely lead to new innovation and problem-solving in society. Still, these majorities are smaller than the shares who see either negative impact as likely to happen, and few (about one-in-ten) say either of these positive impacts would definitely happen.

On balance, Americans expect that the widespread use of brain chips would have a negative impact on the issue of economic inequality. Overall, 57% say that the widespread use of computer chip implants in the brain to improve cognitive function would increase the gap between higher- and lower-income Americans, while just 10% think it would decrease the gap. Three-in-ten say the use of computer chip implants in the brain would not affect economic inequality much.

When asked to consider three potential problems with computer chip implants, majorities say hackers gaining access to people’s information, unwanted changes to the brain, and chip malfunctions are all issues that would happen at least some of the time.

Overall, 52% say hackers gaining access to people’s information would happen a lot of the time if chip implants in the brain were widely used; another 39% say this would occur some of the time. Comparable shares say unwanted changes to the brain would happen a lot (51%) or some (41%) of the time. A large majority also says computer chip malfunctions would happen at least some of the time, though fewer than half say this would happen a lot (37%). In all three instances, very small shares say these potential problems would happen rarely or never.

Most Americans back a higher standard to ensure safety of brain chip implants

Underscoring widely held concerns about the possible use of brain chip implants for improved cognitive function, most Americans (83%) think these implants should be tested using a higher standard than is used for medical devices, compared with just 13% who say existing standards for medical devices should be used to test brain chip implants.

When it comes to who should play a role setting standards for how computer chip implants in the brain are used, Americans place medical doctors and the people getting the chip implants at the top of the list.

About two-thirds (65%) of U.S. adults say the people getting these computer chip implants should play a major role setting the standards for how they are used; another 21% say they should play a minor role. Comparable shares say the medical doctors who implant the devices should play a major (64%) or minor (24%) role setting standards for their use.

Fewer than half of Americans think the companies that make the brain chips (46%) and federal government agencies (44%) should play a major role setting standards for how the chips are used – though majorities say both groups should play at least a minor role (81% and 72%, respectively).

When asked to consider government regulation and brain chip implants, Americans are roughly divided over whether they think government would go too far or not far enough. Half say that, if computer chip implants in the brain become widespread, their greater concern is that government would not go far enough regulating their use; about as many (47%) say their greater concern is that government would go too far in regulating the use of brain chip implants.

One example of potential regulatory measures: Some states across the country have preemptively passed laws banning employers from requiring their employees to have microchips or other implanted devices, citing privacy and other concerns.

A majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (64%) say their greater concern would be government regulations on brain chips not going far enough. By contrast, 62% Republicans and Republican leaners say their greater concern would be government going too far in regulating their use.

While Americans see a number of potential downsides to the widespread use of computer chip implants for enhancement, majorities see conditions that could make the widespread use of brain chip implants more acceptable.

About six-in-ten U.S. adults (59%) say the widespread use of brain chips for improved information processing would be more acceptable if people could turn on and off the effects of the computer chip implant; 31% say this would make no difference in their view, and just 9% say it would make their use less acceptable to them.

Similarly, 53% say the use of brain chips would be more acceptable to them if they could be put in place without surgery, while 36% say this would make no difference in their view.

Large majorities of Americans support the use of brain chips for therapeutic purposes

Brain chip implants are currently in use and development for a variety of purposes, apart from their potential use to enhance how people process information. The survey finds broad support for the use of brain chip implants for therapeutic applications.

A large share of Americans (77%) say they would favor the use of computer implants in the brain to allow increased movement for people who are paralyzed. Just 8% would oppose this use, while 14% say they aren’t sure.

A majority (64%) would also support the use of brain chip implants to treat age-related decline in mental abilities.

Americans are far less supportive of other uses of these devices, where there is no clear therapeutic benefit. About as many would favor as oppose using computer chip implants in the brain to translate thoughts into text (32% favor, 34% oppose), while 32% say they aren’t sure how they feel about this. And a larger share say they would oppose (42%) than favor (25%) using computer chip implants to make it possible for thoughts in the brain to search content on the internet without typing; 31% say they aren’t sure of their views about this possibility.

7. Americans are closely divided over editing a baby’s genes to reduce serious health risk

Americans strongly support using gene editing techniques for people’s therapeutic needs. But, when it comes to their potential use to enhance human health over the course of a lifetime by reducing a baby’s risk of getting serious diseases or conditions, as many Americans think this would be a bad idea for society as say it would be a good idea. The public is also closely divided over whether they would want this for their own baby. As with previous Pew Research Center surveys on this topic, women and more religious Americans are less accepting of gene editing for this purpose.

Scientific advances in the use of CRISPR technology are expanding the possibilities for using gene editing. These techniques are currently in development for therapeutic needs. Clinical trial data suggests that gene therapy can be effective in treating some heritable blood disorders such as sickle cell anemia. Other trials have shown promise for treatment of life-threatening rare diseases.

There are a large number of potential applications of gene editing techniques for humans.² One includes the possibility of using gene editing to prevent, or greatly lower the probability, of developing serious disease. If such applications become widespread it would potentially change the trajectory of human health, greatly reducing the prevalence of serious disease.

The current survey asked respondents to consider one possible use of gene editing techniques: changing the DNA of embryos before a baby is born in order to greatly reduce the baby’s risk of developing serious diseases or health conditions over their lifetime.

Among U.S. adults, equal shares (30% each) say the widespread use of gene editing to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of developing serious diseases or health conditions over their lifetime would be a good idea or bad idea for society. About four-in-ten (39%) are not sure how they feel about using gene editing for this purpose.

Americans are about evenly divided over whether they would want to use gene editing in this way for their own baby, if it were available to them. Overall, 48% say they would definitely or probably want this for their own baby; a similar share (49%) say they would not.

Parents of a minor-age child are a bit more hesitant: 42% say they would want this kind of gene editing for their own baby, while 55% say they would not. (See details in Appendix.)

Although Americans are closely divided over whether they themselves would want gene editing to reduce the risk of disease for their own baby, a majority thinks that most parents would feel pressure to get this type of gene editing. Nearly three-quarters (73%) think most parents would feel pressure to get gene editing to reduce their baby’s risk of developing disease if its use becomes widespread. Far fewer (25%) think most parents would not feel pressure to use gene editing for their baby.

A 2016 Center survey also focused on the idea of using gene editing to enhance health by greatly reducing a baby’s chance of developing serious diseases over their lifetime. Americans were also closely divided over whether or not they would want this kind of gene editing for their baby (48% would and 50% would not). However, the current survey and past Center surveys on American’s views of gene editing in babies have found large differences in views depending on the intended purpose of the genetic modification.

Concern about potential widespread use of gene editing to reduce a baby’s health risk is stronger among those with high religious commitment

One of the largest gaps in views of gene editing to reduce a baby’s risk of developing serious disease is between those with higher and lower levels of religious commitment. Those with higher levels of religious commitment (a three-item index based on the importance of religion in their life and their frequency of religious service attendance and prayer) are much more likely to call the widespread use of gene editing in this way a bad idea than a good idea for society (46% to 14%). By contrast, those with low levels of religious commitment are about twice as likely to say it’s a good idea for society than to say it’s a bad idea (43% to 20%). Between 36% and 41% of those across levels of religious commitment say they aren’t sure about their views.

On balance, men are more likely to call the use of gene editing to reduce the risk of disease in babies a good (36%) rather than a bad idea (29%). Women tilt in the other direction, with more saying the widespread use of gene editing for this purpose would be a bad idea than a good one (32% to 24%).

Among those with at least some college experience, views are slightly more positive than negative about the use of this technology. People with a high school diploma or less education are more negative than positive about the implications for society from the widespread use of gene editing in this way.

Just 8% of U.S. adults say they have heard or read a lot about using gene editing to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of developing serious diseases or conditions over their lifetime, while 47% say they have heard a little and 44% say they have heard nothing at all about this.

People more familiar with the concept of gene editing for babies to reduce the risk of serious diseases or health conditions during their lifetime are more likely to say it is a good idea than bad idea for society (43% to 31%), while about a quarter say they’re not sure (26%). Among those who hadn’t heard about this idea prior to the survey, 28% think the use of gene editing in babies would be a bad idea for society, compared with 23% who think it would be a good idea; nearly half of this group (49%) say they aren’t sure.

Americans foresee both positive and negative implications from widespread use of gene editing to enhance human health

While gene editing techniques hold the promise of reducing the risk of serious disease over a person’s lifetime, the public is not entirely convinced that this would lead to a higher quality of life for people.

Overall, 39% of U.S. adults think the widespread use of gene editing to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of developing serious diseases or health conditions over their lifetime would lead to a better quality of life for people. However, 40% say quality of life for people would be about the same as now if this technology were widely used, and 18% say it would be worse.

Further, about half of Americans (52%) say that “this idea is meddling with nature and crosses a line we should not cross.” By contrast, 46% say their views are better described by the statement “as humans, we are always trying to better ourselves and this idea is no different.”

A majority of those high in religious commitment (72%) consider this use of gene editing to be inappropriate, crossing a line we should not cross. By contrast, a majority of adults with low levels of religious commitment (64%) take the opposing view and describe this use of gene editing as no different than other efforts to better ourselves.

Asked to think about a future where gene editing to reduce the risk of babies developing serious diseases or health conditions is widespread, the public sees both positive and negative impacts as likely to happen. But one negative outcome is seen as particularly likely: the use of these techniques in ways that are morally unacceptable.

Overall, 84% think that even if gene editing is used appropriately in some cases, others would definitely or probably use these techniques in ways that are morally unacceptable.

Nearly seven-in-ten (68%) say these gene editing techniques would definitely or probably go too far eliminating natural differences between people in society.

At the same time, 66% say the development of these techniques would definitely or probably pave the way for new medical advances that benefit society as a whole, and 65% say these techniques would likely help people live longer and better-quality lives.

In thinking about access to these techniques, 55% of U.S. adults say that if the use of gene editing to reduce a baby’s risk of developing a serious disease during their lifetime becomes widespread, the gap between higher- and lower-income Americans would increase. About a third (35%) say the widespread use of this technology would not make much difference in the gap between higher- and lower-income Americans; 8% say it would decrease this gap.

Majority backs higher standard for testing use of gene editing in babies, major role for medical scientists in setting standards

In line with concerns about the possible misuse of gene editing, a large majority (80%) of Americans say that gene editing techniques to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of serious diseases or conditions should be tested using a higher standard than those used for other medical treatments to ensure their safety and effectiveness. Only 17% say gene editing should be tested using existing standards for medical treatments.

When asked who should be responsible for setting standards regarding the use of gene editing, two-thirds of Americans (67%) believe that medical scientists should play a major role, while another 21% say they should play a minor role.

Over half (55%) say the people who get these gene modifications should play a major role in setting the standards for how they are used; 29% think they should play a minor role.

Fewer than half say the companies that develop gene editing techniques (44%) and federal government agencies (41%) should have major roles in setting standards. However, majorities of Americans say both of these groups should play at least a minor role in setting standards for how gene editing techniques are used.

Americans are closely divided when it comes to their greater concern about government regulation in this area. In all, 51% say that if this use of gene editing becomes widespread, their greater concern is government will not go far enough regulating its use. Nearly as many (47%) take the opposite view and say their greater concern is that government regulation will go too far.

Democrats and Republicans differ widely on this question, consistent with their broader views on government regulation. A majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (62%) say that if gene editing to reduce a baby’s risk of developing a serious disease or condition becomes widespread, their greater concern is that government will go too far in regulating the use of this technology. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, 63% say their greater concern is that government regulation will not go far enough.

Consent, control and heritability matter in thinking about the potential use of gene editing to reduce the risk of developing disease

Overall, 53% of U.S. adults say the use of gene editing would be more acceptable to them if it were only used in adults who could consent to the procedure, rather than for babies; 34% say this wouldn’t make a difference in their view and 11% say it would make the use of gene editing less acceptable to them.

About half or more of both those who say they would and would not want to use gene editing for their own baby say the idea of adult consent for this use of gene editing would make it more acceptable to them.

Roughly half (49%) of Americans also say the use of gene editing to reduce disease risk would be more acceptable to them if people could choose which diseases and conditions are affected. A similar share, 48%, say it would be more acceptable to them if the effects were limited to the person receiving the treatment and not passed on to future generations, a key concern among genetic experts when it comes to the societal and ethical implications of gene editing in babies.

About seven-in-ten Americans favor the use of gene editing to treat serious diseases

When asked to consider some other possible uses for gene editing (beyond use on babies to prevent the future risk of disease) the public is broadly supportive of using gene editing to treat conditions a person already has, but they are broadly opposed to using it to make a baby more attractive.

About seven-in-ten Americans (71%) say they would favor the use of gene editing to treat serious diseases or health conditions that a person currently has. Just 10% say they would oppose gene therapy, and 18% say they’re not sure.

Gene therapy aims to treat disease by correcting an underlying genetic problem. It is in use or in an experimental development phase for a range of diseases including immune deficiencies and cancer.

A 57% majority of those with high levels of religious commitment on a three-item index favor the use of gene editing to treat a current disease or health condition, as do large majorities of those with medium (71%) and low (83%) levels of religious commitment.

By contrast, a large majority (74%) in the U.S. say they would oppose using gene editing to change a baby’s physical characteristics to make them more attractive. Only 5% would favor this (20% say they’re not sure).

These findings are broadly in line with a 2019-2020 Center survey which found majorities in the U.S. and many other places surveyed thought the use of gene editing in babies to make a baby more intelligent would be taking technology too far but that gene editing for treating a baby’s serious disease or health condition would be an appropriate use of the technology.

8. Mixed views about a future with widespread use of robotic exoskeletons to increase strength for manual labor jobs

Robotic exoskeletons are an emerging technology now being developed with the potential to augment human strength. Some are in development for use in manual labor jobs to give workers increased strength for lifting heavy objects. More complex exoskeletons are sometimes called a “wearable robot,” because they include a built-in artificial intelligence (AI) computer system which uses sensor data to help guide its use.

Americans report a mix of views about the potential for widespread use of robotic exoskeletons with built-in AI to give workers in manual jobs increased strength. While a majority sees this idea as being in line with long-standing efforts to better ourselves as humans, a slightly larger share of the public say they would hesitate to use such a device than say they would want to do so.

As Americans think about the possible widespread use of robotic exoskeletons with built-in AI systems for workers in manual jobs, 33% say this would be a good thing for society, a smaller share (24%) say it would be a bad thing, and nearly double that share (42%) say they are not sure what the impact would be for society.

If given the chance, a narrow majority of Americans (54%) say they, personally, would not want to use a robotic exoskeleton for manual labor tasks; 45% say they definitely or probably would like to use one.

About two-thirds of Americans are skeptical robotic exoskeletons would improve manual labor conditions

Exoskeletons are being used and developed for a variety of purposes. These external devices that combine human and machine movement can be designed as a whole body suit, as portrayed in the Iron Man movies, or as devices to fit specific areas such as the lower body, the hand or the head, neck and shoulders. Some are aimed at therapeutic roles to help people with spinal cord injury regain use of their limbs, for example. Others are being developed for military applications, or as in this example to support industrial work. In the future, experts believe their use could extend to the general population for use in exercise or fitness activities.

In thinking about the potential widespread use of robotic exoskeletons with a built-in AI system for use in manual labor jobs, many Americans are skeptical that such devices would improve conditions for workers. About a third (32%) say that the widespread use of robotic exoskeletons in manual labor jobs would make conditions for workers better than they are now, while about as many (31%) say they would make conditions worse; 36% say that, if exoskeletons were in widespread use, working conditions would be the same as they are today.

Less than half the public raises ethical concerns about this idea. When asked which statement better describes their views about the possible widespread use of robotic exoskeletons for manual labor jobs, 62% express alignment with the view that “as humans we are always trying to better ourselves and this idea is no different.” A smaller share (36%) takes the opposing view that “this idea is meddling with nature and crosses a line we should not cross.”

These findings stand in contrast to public views about other forms of human enhancement considered in the Center survey. For example, a 63% majority of Americans say that the potential widespread use of brain chip implants to improve cognitive functioning would be crossing a line that we should not cross. And Americans are closely divided over whether the use of gene editing to greatly reduce a baby’s risk of developing serious diseases or conditions over their lifetime would be crossing a line (52%) or in keeping with ways that humans have tried to better ourselves over time (46%).

As with those other potential avenues to human enhancement, however, people’s level of religious commitment are correlated with their views about this. (Religious commitment is based on a three-item index reflecting the salience of religion in a respondent’s life, their frequency of religious service attendance and their frequency of prayer.) Among those with high religious commitment, 48% say the widespread use of robotic exoskeletons with built-in AI for manual labor jobs would be meddling with nature and crosses a line, while 50% say it’s no different than other efforts at improvement. By contrast, majorities of those with medium (60%) or low (78%) levels of religious commitment say the use of robotic exoskeletons to greatly increase strength for manual labor jobs is no different than other human efforts to better ourselves.

Men, those familiar with robotic exoskeletons are more inclined to say the widespread use of exoskeletons would be a good idea for society

Public awareness of robotic exoskeletons is limited as of now. Only 6% of Americans say they have heard a lot about robotic exoskeletons with built-in artificial intelligence, while 37% have heard a little and 57% say they have heard nothing at all.

Those who are more familiar with the idea of robotic exoskeletons with built-in AI systems are more positive about their use. People who have heard at least a little about these devices are more likely to think their widespread use would be a good idea for society (48%) than a bad one (23%). By contrast, those who had not heard at all about this idea are closely divided between whether the widespread use of robotic exoskeletons in this way would be a good (22%) or bad (26%) thing. The remainder (52%) are undecided about this.

Men are more than twice as likely to say that the widespread use of exoskeletons for manual labor would a good idea for society (46%) as to say it is bad idea (19%). By contrast, just 21% of women say this would be a good idea for society, while 29% call it a bad idea.

Those with higher levels of education are more embracing than those with less education of a future with widespread use of robotic exoskeletons with built-in AI for manual labor jobs. Among those with a postgraduate degree, significantly larger shares say the use of exoskeletons in manual labor jobs would be a good idea than bad idea for society (45% vs. 14%), and the same is true among those with a four-year college degree (38% vs. 17%). The balance of opinion is more narrowly divided among those with some college education (34% good idea, 25% bad idea). And among those with a high school diploma or less education, more say that exoskeletons are a bad idea (31%) than good idea (25%) for society.

There are only modest difference by age when it comes to views about this. People ages 65 and older are less likely to take a position on whether the widespread use of exoskeletons with built-in AI for manual labor jobs would be good or bad thing for society; those who do are closely divided on this issue. The balance of opinion tilts more positive among adults under age 30 (38% say this would be a good idea and 29% say it would be a bad idea).

Similar differences are seen in levels of personal interest about using an exoskeleton. Those most familiar with this idea and men overall are among the most enthusiastic about using such a device themselves. Those with high school or less education are less inclined than those with a college degree or more education to want to use such a device themselves. (See the Appendix for more details.)

Americans anticipate a mix of positive and negative effects, if robotic exoskeletons with built-in AI become widely used in manual labor

Asked to consider a future where robotic exoskeletons were widely used in manual labor, Americans anticipate both positive and negative impacts for workers.

Two potential downsides resonate broadly with the public: 81% say employers would definitely or probably need fewer workers and lay off part of their workforce if robotic exoskeletons were widely used. Concerns also exist about the physical effects on workers: 73% think that workers would probably or definitely lose strength from relying too much on the exoskeletons.

However, the public also sees the potential for robotic exoskeletons to yield benefits for workers. Seven-in-ten say workers would probably or definitely experience fewer workplace injuries, and 65% say exoskeletons would make it possible for more people to be able to do manual labor jobs.

Americans want high standards, worker input for regulating exoskeleton use

Industry experts anticipate continued refinements in the design, use and demand for robotic exoskeletons in the coming decades. At this early stage, a large majority of Americans stress the importance of a rigorous review of their safety and effectiveness: 72% say robotic exoskeletons should be tested using a higher standard than used for other workplace equipment. Far fewer (26%) say that existing standards are sufficient for testing robotic exoskeletons.

When it comes to who should play a part setting regulatory standards for the use robotic exoskeletons, the public ranks input from workers at the top of the list. Two-thirds of U.S. adults (67%) say the workers who would be using exoskeletons should play a major role setting standards for how they are used; another 22% say workers should play a minor role.

A smaller majority (55%) says the companies that develop the robotic exoskeletons should play a major role in setting standards for how they are used, and 49% say the same about employers. (Large majorities say both should play at least a minor role in setting standards.)

About a third of the public (35%) says federal government agencies should have a major role in setting regulatory standards, while 39% say it should have a minor role.

There are generally modest or no differences between party groups in these views, although Democrats and independents who lean to the Democratic Party are more inclined than their Republican counterparts to say federal government agencies should have a major role in setting standards (46% vs. 23%).

Americans are closely divided over their greater concern about government involvement in regulating the use of robotic exoskeletons for manual labor. About half (49%) say their greater concern is that government will go too far in regulating their use, while 48% say they are more concerned that government regulation will not go far enough.

A majority of Republicans (67%) say their greater concern is that government will go too far regulating the use of robotic exoskeletons for manual labor. A majority of Democrats express the opposite view: 65% say they are more concerned that government will not go far enough regulating the use of robotic exoskeletons.

Americans more open to use of robotic exoskeletons for manual labor if licenses are required, focus is on worker safety

While Americans are roughly divided over whether the use of robotic exoskeletons for manual labor would be a good or bad idea for society, many see conditions that would make their use more acceptable.

About seven-in-ten (68%) say they would find the use of robotic exoskeletons with built-in artificial intelligence computer systems for manual labor jobs more acceptable if people were required to be licensed to operate them. A majority (59%) also says they would find the use of such exoskeletons more acceptable if employers could only use them to improve worker safety, rather than to increase productivity.

Robotic exoskeletons raise a number of new questions for society. Among these: Should such devices be designed for a wider range of body types than most of those currently employed in manual labor jobs? The trade-offs to doing so would likely be costs and time to develop effective devices in this way.

As of now, the public leans toward the idea that robotic exoskeletons should be made for a wide range of body types, rather than typical worker body types, even if that impacts cost. Overall, 40% say robotic exoskeletons should only be made if they fit a wide range of worker body types, even if this increases their cost. A smaller share (17%) says it’s OK to make robotic exoskeletons that just fit the typical body types of manual labor workers in order to lower their cost, even if they won’t work for many other people. About four-in-ten (41%) say they aren’t sure about their views on this question.

Some potential uses of robotic exoskeletons garner wide public support

Use in manual labor jobs is just one of many possible applications of robotic exoskeleton technology. Some exoskeletons in use today are aimed at assisting people with physical disabilities or limitations resulting from disease or injury. Others could be used to augment the strength and endurance of first responders. And some experts anticipate the use of exoskeletons for wider use, such as allowing people to run or climb faster.

Large majorities of Americans say they would favor the use of robotic exoskeletons with built-in artificial intelligence computer systems to improve the quality of life for people with physical limitations (79%). About as many (77%) also say they would favor their use to increase the ability of firefighters to lift in emergency situations.

By contrast, more say they would oppose (49%) than favor (20%) the use of robotic exoskeletons to give people greater strength for recreational activities; 30% say they aren’t sure how they feel about this.

Acknowledgments

Primary researchers

Cary Funk, Director, Science and Society Research
Lee Rainie, Director, Internet and Technology Research
Monica Anderson, Associate Director
Alec Tyson, Associate Director
Michelle Faverio, Research Analyst
Risa Gelles-Watnick, Research Assistant
Brian Kennedy, Senior Researcher
Colleen McClain, Research Associate
Andrew Perrin, Research Analyst
Emily Saks, Research Assistant
Alison Spencer, Research Assistant
Emily A. Vogels, Research Associate

Editorial and graphic design

Margaret Porteus, Information Graphics Designer
David Kent, Senior Copy Editor

Communications and web publishing

Haley Nolan, Communications Associate
Kelsey Beveridge, Communications Associate
Sara Atske, Associate Digital Producer
Reem Nadeem, Associate Digital Producer

In addition, the project benefited greatly from the guidance of Pew Research Center’s methodology team: Courtney Kennedy, Andrew Mercer, Nick Bertoni, Dorene Asare-Marfo, Nick Hatley, Ashley Amaya and Arnold Lau. While developing the questionnaire, the Center benefited from a series of research talks and conversations with experts in artificial intelligence and human enhancement: Arthur Caplan, Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor of Bioethics, New York University; Deep Ganguli, former director of research, Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence; Josh Bongard, Professor of Computer Science, University of Vermont; Leia Stirling, Associate Professor of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan; S. Matthew Liao, Arthur Zitrin Professor of Bioethics, New York University; Meredith Whittaker, co-founder of the AI Now Institute and Minderoo Research Professor of Technology, Culture and Society, New York University; Nicol Turner Lee, Director of Technology Innovation, Brookings Institution; C. Raymond Perrault, Distinguished Computer Scientist at SRI International; and Rob Reich, Associate Director of Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence and Professor of Political Science, Stanford.