WIREDGOV

Events in recent weeks have brought public and policymaker concerns about the future of AI to the fore: rapid advancements in model capability, high-profile cybersecurity incidents, and intensifying global competition are dominating the debate.

The FGS Global AI Pulse report, published today and based on polling across seven markets and expert interviews globally, finds that amid this rising policymaker and public scepticism, there is a significant opportunity for industry to shape the debate. This can happen if the conversation is rooted in credible commitments on safety and community engagement, and sets out how AI will benefit people practically in their day-to-day lives.

AI has a clear brand challenge. Our research found that among the public, AI scores a net positivity rating of just +18%, versus +35% for social media and +74% for smartphones. This is mirrored among the people shaping AI policy. Policymakers who were previously optimistic about AI describe mounting anxiety about risk, citing cybersecurity incidents and geopolitical flashpoints as turning points. Policy opinion is now converging with public scepticism.

The paradox – and the opportunity – is that this AI scepticism sits alongside widespread adoption. 71% of adults across the markets polled have used an AI tool in the past six months. Of those that use AI, around nine in ten do so as an alternative to or alongside search engines, six in ten use it at work, and one in four use it for financial advice and guidance – more than those who use a professional financial adviser or wealth manager. It appears that AI adoption is outpacing trust.

And yet, the public are persuadable. In the public survey, we asked half of the respondents to consider the potential benefits of AI, and half the potential negatives. Among those exposed to AI’s benefits, 37% reported feeling more positive; notably, the decline in sentiment from those who considered the negatives was much more limited. The benefits which resonated most with the public were the pragmatic, day-to-day ones, such as “making tasks like booking appointments, managing finances and accessing advice faster and more accessible”, rather than macro arguments, such as driving economic growth.

AI safety also emerged as a key priority for both the public and experts. 63% of the people we polled across all seven markets believe that AI safety should be prioritised over the global AI race, and only 7% think AI companies should be left to self-regulate on cybersecurity. Many of the policymakers we spoke to called for industry to address the trust and credibility deficit by setting ethical boundaries and focusing on model governance.

Attitudes are not consistent everywhere. The UK stands out from the other six markets we looked at, as measurably more negative towards AI, a pattern that has appeared in previous FGS Global research. Yet British respondents are also less pessimistic than their European neighbours about the UK’s ability to compete on AI sovereignty, and more likely to identify scientific breakthroughs as a key benefit of AI than other markets. For British firms and policymakers, this suggests that the debate may also be advanced around areas of national competitive advantage and innovation.

The data shows that attitudes are not fixed, they can move when people and policymakers see what AI delivers and believe it can be trusted. The public is willing to have the conversation, and shifting the debate now depends on whether industry is willing to engage.