Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research
Date Submitted: Feb 28, 2022
Open Peer Review Period: Feb 28, 2022 - Apr 25, 2022
Date Accepted: Jul 19, 2022
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
The Australian Values and Attitudes on AI (AVA-AI) Study: Methodologically Innovative National Survey about Adopting Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Social Services
ABSTRACT
Background:
Artificial intelligence (AI) for use in healthcare and social services is rapidly developing, but this has significant ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI). Theoretical and conceptual research in AI ethics is rapidly expanding; empirical research is needed to understand the values and judgements of members of the public, who will be the ultimate recipients of AI-enabled services.
Objective:
To assess and compare Australians’ general and particular judgements regarding the use of AI, to compare Australians’ judgements about different healthcare and social service applications of AI, and to determine the attributes of health and social service AI systems that Australians consider most important.
Methods:
We conducted a survey of the Australian population using an innovative sampling and weighting methodology involving two sample components, one from an omnibus survey using a sample selected by scientific probability sampling methods, and one from a non-probability sampled online panel. The online panel sample was calibrated to the omnibus survey sample using behavioural, lifestyle and socio-demographic variables. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed.
Results:
We included weighted responses from 1950 Australians in the online panel, along with a further 2498 from the omnibus survey for a subset of questions. Both weighted samples were socio-demographically well spread. An estimated 60% of Australians support the development of AI in general, but in specific healthcare scenarios this diminishes to between 27 and 43%, and for social service scenarios between 31 and 39%. While all ethical and social dimensions of AI presented were rated as important, accuracy was consistently the most important and reducing costs the least important; speed was also consistently lower in importance. Four in five Australians valued continued human contact and discretion in service provision more than any speed, accuracy, or convenience that AI systems might provide.
Conclusions:
The ethical and social dimensions of AI systems matter to Australians. AI systems should augment rather than replace humans in the provision of both health and social services, and these AI systems should reflect human values. There must be meaningful and active participation of ethicists, social scientists and the public in AI development and implementation, particularly in sensitive and value-laden domains such as healthcare and social services.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.