Governing Artificial Intelligence: Public Preferences and Regulatory Options
Magnus Lundgren, Jonas Tallberg
Why It Matters
What makes this one worth your time
Understanding public preferences can guide policymakers in aligning AI regulations with societal values, potentially leading to more effective and accepted governance frameworks.
The study uncovers a misalignment between current AI regulatory approaches and public preferences across multiple countries.
Summary
The paper reports on a conjoint survey experiment conducted in seven countries to understand public preferences regarding AI regulation, revealing a preference for safety, public governance, and international approaches over innovation, private self-regulation, and national governance.
Key contributions
- Conducted a large-scale conjoint survey experiment across seven countries.
- Identified a systematic misalignment between current regulatory approaches and citizen preferences.
Notable insights
- Citizens across diverse countries prioritize safety over innovation in AI regulation.
- There is a strong preference for international governance over national approaches.
Possible limitations
- Not stated in the abstract
Abstract
arXiv:2607.14585v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming economies, societies, and polities, raising fundamental questions about how it should be regulated. Policymakers face choices over whether to prioritize innovation or safety, rely on public oversight or private self-regulation, and govern nationally or internationally. Yet little is known about how citizens evaluate these competing priorities. Here we report a conjoint survey experiment conducted in seven countries with diverse political and economic profiles. We find that citizens strongly support regulating AI and generally prioritize safety over innovation, public governance over private self-regulation, and international over national approaches. The preference for safety is strongest among those who perceive AI as risky, unpredictable, and personally consequential. These findings reveal a systematic misalignment between dominant regulatory approaches and citizen preferences.