Ryan D. King is a professor of Sociology and divisional dean of social and behavioral sciences at The Ohio State University.
Stephen M. Gavazzi is a professor in the College of Education and Human Ecology and director of the Center for Human Resource Research at The Ohio State University.
As the midterm elections approach and the political parties stress their differences, Ohioans across the political spectrum seem to share a common sentiment on artificial intelligence: use it productively but regulate it and keep humans in control.
That was the takeaway of a survey of 501 Ohio adults we recently conducted to understand what residents are thinking about AI; what they want from it, what they fear, and who should regulate it.
The survey’s timing proved apt. A small but determined group of Ohioans recently descended on the Statehouse to protest the siting of large data centers. These citizens, some of whom spoke to the Select Committee on Data Centers, were conscientious about artificial intelligence, favorable towards some regulation, and diverse in their political leanings.
As one participant told The Columbus Dispatch, “People who normally would never agree on anything are suddenly working together because they started seeing the same things happening all over Ohio.” Our survey suggests this is true more generally, at least for now.
Not losing control
The online survey was conducted by the Ohio State University’s Center for Human Resource Research between April 14 and May 12. The sample reflected a broad cross-section of Ohio residents: men and women in roughly equal numbers, a wide ideological range from liberal to conservative, and a heavily working-age population with many college-educated respondents.
The results were revealing.
The majority of Ohioans use AI regularly at work or home and believe its purpose is to make humans more productive; not to displace workers. And during a moment when the political left and right don’t seem to agree on much, liberals and conservatives have remarkably similar dispositions towards AI: use it productively for human benefit, but don’t lose control of it.
Nearly all Ohioans (95%) perceive themselves as having at least a basic understanding of AI, with more than half claiming a working or advanced knowledge of it.
It is also embedded in daily routines. Large majorities report using voice assistants (80%), interacting with chatbots (75%), and engaging with AI-generated content (76%).
Three quarters of Ohioans report using AI tools at least weekly for either personal or work-related purposes.
Serving humans
While the majority of respondents use AI, and generally trust it to be safe, they have some clear expectations.
First, majorities want AI to help and advise, but not decide. For instance, a strong majority of respondents (60% or more) express a great deal or fair amount of trust in AI to be safe and secure in the contexts of health, financial recommendations, K-12 educational tools, and public safety. However, most Ohio residents also feel that AI should not make legal decisions, diagnose medical conditions, or teach without human supervision.
Second, Ohioans want to ensure that AI serves human interests and operates with human oversight.
When asked what would make AI safe and trustworthy, over 70% of respondents mentioned human oversight over critical decisions.
Comparatively fewer respondents selected independent safety audits, transparency, and robust privacy protections, each of which could be equally or more effective than human attention. In short, AI is seen as an assistive tool, but not an independent decision-maker.
Finally, a strong majority (about 71%) believes the government should regulate AI to prevent harm, even if doing so slows innovation.
Something Ohioans agree on
And although most respondents trusted private tech companies to develop safe and responsible AI tools, 80% strongly or somewhat agreed that state and federal governments should regulate tech companies to ensure that minimal safety procedures are in place.
Somewhat surprisingly, given the polarized political environment, Ohioans’ views towards regulating AI were fairly consistent across the political spectrum.
Nearly equal percentages of self-identifying “extremely liberal” and “extremely conservative” respondents thought that government regulation of AI was needed, even if it risks slowing down innovation (77%).
Respondents identifying as moderately or slightly conservative were as likely as respondents identifying as moderately or slightly liberal to favor regulation (70% or more).
The data provides an opportunity for productive and bipartisan discussion of AI regulations. There is a clear mandate – most Ohioans, regardless of political leaning, want regulation. This sentiment chimes with that of thoughtful leaders in the tech sector.
Stanford’s Fei-Fei Li of the Institute for Human-Centered AI has written that “AI must augment human capability, not replace it… It must always respect the agency and dignity of people.” Most Ohioans reach the same conclusion.
For policymakers, finding the balance between innovation and oversight isn’t a problem. It is a directive.
Ryan D. King is a professor of Sociology and divisional dean of social and behavioral sciences at The Ohio State University.
Stephen M. Gavazzi is a professor in the College of Education and Human Ecology and director of the Center for Human Resource Research at The Ohio State University.
This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Ohioans don’t want AI to control us. OSU poll make that crystal clear | Opinion
Reporting by Ryan D. King and Stephen M. Gavazzi, Guest Columnists / The Columbus Dispatch
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By Ryan D. King and Stephen M. Gavazzi, Guest Columnists | USA TODAY Network
