arXiv:2503.07690cs.CYcs.AI2025-03被引 26

AI辅助议事遭公众抵制,可能催生新型参与鸿沟。

Artificial Intelligence in Deliberation: The AI Penalty and the Emergence of a New Deliberative Divide

  • 用德国1850人实验对比AI与人类主持的议事效果。
  • 超七成受访者不愿参与AI主导的讨论,且认为质量更低。
  • 对AI信任度高者更愿参与,态度决定新形式的民主门槛。

数字议事拓展了民主参与,但面临信息处理、讨论监管、事实核查及吸引参与者等挑战。人工智能(AI)技术提供潜在解决方案,但公众对AI在议事中角色的看法仍不明确。民主议事不仅关乎效率,更涉及声音表达与身份认同。若引入AI,公众信任、接受度及参与意愿可能受影响。本研究基于德国代表性样本(n=1850)开展预注册调查实验,随机分配受试者至接收AI或人类主导议事信息的组别,考察其参与意愿与议事质量评价。结果揭示显著的‘AI惩罚效应’:相比人类主持,参与者更不愿加入AI辅助议事,且对其质量评价更低。该效应受个体倾向调节:对AI社会益处的认可及将AI拟人化可正向增强参与意愿与质量评分;而对AI风险的担忧则产生负面交互作用。研究提示,AI议事面临广泛公众质疑,可能引发新的参与分化。不同于传统由教育或人口统计因素造成的参与差距,这一分化由对AI的态度塑造。随着民主参与日益线上化,如何避免AI削弱参与意愿或加剧不平等,将成为未来研究与政策的关键挑战。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Digital deliberation has expanded democratic participation, yet challenges remain. This includes processing information at scale, moderating discussions, fact-checking, or attracting people to participate. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) offer potential solutions, but public perceptions of AI's role in deliberation remain underexplored. Beyond efficiency, democratic deliberation is about voice and recognition. If AI is integrated into deliberation, public trust, acceptance, and willingness to participate may be affected. We conducted a preregistered survey experiment with a representative sample in Germany (n=1850) to examine how information about AI-enabled deliberation influences willingness to participate and perceptions of deliberative quality. Respondents were randomly assigned to treatments that provided them information about deliberative tasks facilitated by either AI or humans. Our findings reveal a significant AI-penalty. Participants were less willing to engage in AI-facilitated deliberation and rated its quality lower than human-led formats. These effects were moderated by individual predispositions. Perceptions of AI's societal benefits and anthropomorphization of AI showed positive interaction effects on people's interest to participate in AI-enabled deliberative formats and positive quality assessments, while AI risk assessments showed negative interactions with information about AI-enabled deliberation. These results suggest AI-enabled deliberation faces substantial public skepticism, potentially even introducing a new deliberative divide. Unlike traditional participation gaps based on education or demographics, this divide is shaped by attitudes toward AI. As democratic engagement increasingly moves online, ensuring AI's role in deliberation does not discourage participation or deepen inequalities will be a key challenge for future research and policy.

AI治理民主参与公共信任实验研究

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。