Between Hesitation and Hope

As a major technological breakthrough, Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is poised to profoundly impact American society. More in Common seeks to elevate Americans’ voices as private and public leaders weigh decisions about GenAI that will impact our key issues, including declining social cohesion, collapsing institutional trust, and rising political division. 

Key Takeaways

• Americans view GenAI as a powerful force whose full consequences are yet to be seen. 
  • The most expressed emotion is “uncertain” (49%), followed by “interested” (36%) and “worried” (29%). 
  • Americans are split on whether the technology will improve their lives, worsen their lives, or make no difference at all. 
  • Women, rural Americans, and those with a low sense of belonging are generally more skeptical and fearful about GenAI’s impact compared to men, urban residents, and those with a strong sense of community.

• Most fear GenAI will make society more distrusting, divided, dependent, and dumb. 
  • Four in five (83%) worry GenAI will erode trust in news, and three in five (65%) fear it will further strain trust among people. 
  • Three in four (76%) believe it will make us lazier—overly reliant on technology for everyday cognitive and intellectual tasks.
  • Three in five (62%) express concern that GenAI will lead to a less intelligent society, impacting the development of critical thinking skills. 

• GenAI is more appealing in supporting roles, but threatening in roles of authority and intimacy. 
  • Americans are generally more positive about AI as assistants or drivers, where human agency remains more present. 
  • Hesitation rises when GenAI takes on roles like doctors, judges, or friends, where its authority or intimacy feels invasive or dehumanizing.
  • But the details of the technology matter: there is no majority consensus about whether a technology would be more harmful or helpful across 8 of 9 GenAI roles. The single exception is GenAI in the role of a romantic partner, which Americans overwhelmingly reject as harmful. 

• Americans’ attitudes towards GenAI fall into five segments that skew towards being doubtful.
  • Using a cluster analysis, we identify that half of Americans are grouped into Skeptics (21%) and Cautious (28%), groups marked by high levels of concern and uncertainty about GenAI impacts.
  • Tech Enthusiasts (14%) and Boosters (16%) are more optimistic, seeing GenAI as a tool for progress. A substantial number are simply Indifferent (21%).
  • Demographic factors influence these segments, with women and rural Americans more likely to be Skeptics or Cautious, while men, urban residents, and those with higher education lean toward Tech Enthusiasts and Boosters.

• We see nearly identical attitudes towards Big Tech and government regulation across parties and major groups.
  • Members of the political parties are just 2% apart on whether “Big tech companies do not help the American public” (Democrats: 70%, Republicans: 72%).
  • Members of the political parties are 5% apart in doubting that GenAI development will protect Americans (Democrats: 66%, Republicans: 71%). 
  • Members of the political parties are just 6% apart on whether “GenAI government policies are not designed to help Americans” (Democrats: 67%, Republicans: 73%).