What is the actual percentage of people For and Against AI?

Ive started to think about it lately, a google search just doesn't yield a satisfiable result.

What do you guys think ? How many people are actually against AI?

Sometimes it feels like the majority are starting to be skeptical, but maybe that's just the environment im surrounded by.

7 points | by Zeruxe 1 hour ago

11 comments

  • nperez 1 hour ago
    I don't think it's a binary. Even among people who are pro-AI, there are uses of AI that almost everyone is against. I doubt most people have a problem with a lightweight model that runs on a laptop and does grammar checks, but models that are wildly energy-inefficient or used for war + crime + scams are a different story.
    • lf88 42 minutes ago
      I agree. I am extremely worried about the development of frontier AI models. I would like to see an immediate stop of further developments of such models and a permanent, global, ban on superintelligence.

      On the contrary, I think that less capable models could be used for several, largely positive, applications.

      I also think that narrow AI models developed for specific scientific applications (e.g., protein folding, weather predictions...) are in general beneficial for humanity.

      • Zeruxe 34 minutes ago
        sorry but are we really gonna be calling it superintelligence now ? haha

        I totally agree with the benefits of the smaller models, but it's the large frontier models, potentially or accidently removing the security barriers from those can cause things far worse than the "hugging face" incident..

        • lf88 14 minutes ago
          Building a super-intelligent AI is the stated goal of major AI companies. It may or may not be possible, but due to the recent surge in capabilities of frontier models I would not take any risk.

          Frontier models are, indeed, already too capable and too dangerous. I would have been more comfortable if a stop of the development occurred 12 months ago. However, the second best moment to press the "stop" button is now.

          • Zeruxe 10 minutes ago
            Very well said..

            But why would they stop when they have a clear path up? They don't care about the people they just care about growing their wallets. I don't see them ever pressing the stop button aslong as results are there, also I do think that results will probably deteriorate, as I would like to believe transformers will hit a limit or rather a bottleneck, perhaps several bottlenecks. Where progress will massively slow down.

    • Zeruxe 58 minutes ago
      That's fair. A lightweight self-hosted model can't be so harmful(yet).

      Perhaps more about the huge frontier models being developed at openai or antrophic.

      Or perhaps the controversial stuff being associated with Palantir.

      People are starting to ask questions, I mean a lot are just worried, I had so many people tell me they were pro-ai a few years back, but now they just have that worried face whenever you mention it.

  • strken 44 minutes ago
    If AI was a presidential candidate, it would be in trouble.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/712751/americans-cool-toward.as...

    • Zeruxe 25 minutes ago
      9% believed it does more good than harm.. haha
  • NishanStepak 31 minutes ago
    For Americans, Pew Research does a pretty good job of breaking it down. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/03/12/key-findi...
    • Zeruxe 26 minutes ago
      Just looking through that quickly - "56% of AI experts expect AI to have a positive impact on the US, compared with only 17% of the general public."

      Are the "experts" being optimistic ? or is the general population being too concerned?

      • martheen 13 minutes ago
        Those "experts" works in companies that have spent years touting about LLMs solving everything while getting massive pay raise.

        The general public see LLMs flailing at simple tasks, spam fake contents, and target civilians for military strikes all the while struggling to pay the bills. It also doesn't help that LLM companies PR think claiming their products to be extremely dangerous as selling point.

        If I'm selling a car for civilians, I won't be touting how it would barrel through pedestrians even if technically all cars can do it.

  • lf88 51 minutes ago
    According to all the recent polls the vast majority of the population in the western world is worried about AI and wants stricter regulations. I would say it's about time!
    • Zeruxe 49 minutes ago
      If this is true(which I hope it is) it would certainly be calming, not because im against it totally.

      I just think turning the blind eye will hit us like a big truck in a few years.. It really is about time..

  • anenefan 21 minutes ago
    It's down to how it's used and whether or not it's an efficient or worthwhile use of resources.

    For the many positive things A.I. can or could do, the negatives are bound up into many concerns or considerations;

      Will the products be better or substantially better given the A.I's overall cost?
    
      Down the track will it make things on average cheaper?
    
      How soon before much of it's use is primarily monitoring people online and off ... and then just how long before  everyone will be expected to have a 24 hr a day/ all year long  A.I. buddy / minder / nanny / *cop*  just like the tech tools presently expect everyone has to have a mobile phone?
    
    
    
    AI is very useful, but for the amount of data centres planned, people are asking what possible additional legitimately beneficial usage can there be waiting in the wings - there is great scepticism that it's more likely an elaborate path to make a small group of people filthy rich.
    • Zeruxe 17 minutes ago
      I think the economic questions are easier to evaluate. If AI consistently delivers better results at lower costs, there's a pretty strong argument for adopting it. But that is not the case for the large frontier models that actually produce the "best" quality out of the rest, they are just too expensive.

      But the smaller models are somewhat profitable as they require almost no comparable compute.

      The surveillance concern is definitely justified and I think it is already happening before our own eyes..

  • BugsJustFindMe 34 minutes ago
    > What do you guys think?

    Your survival under capitalism depends on you being needed. And if right now AI helps you do things, tomorrow AI makes you unnecessary. The thing to worry about here isn't AI. The thing to worry about here is a society that has no plan to stop forcing everyone to labor to eat while simultaneously devaluing their labor.

    There are three important analytic boundaries:

    1) Some people are less employable right now because of AI.

    2) The limit approaching everyone else will be less employable in the future because of AI if it keeps progressing (this includes even manual labor eventually), and we have no reason yet to believe that it won't keep progressing.

    3) AI might suddenly stop progressing for unpredictable reasons, but right now that doesn't seem likely.

    • Zeruxe 29 minutes ago
      1. Agree and it sounds horrible to think about, I really don't like the counter arguement "it's creating new opportunities".

      2. I don't think automating tasks necessarily means eliminating a profession, but what AI can do is unfortunately speaking more than just automation.

      3. Do you really think so ? I mean what do you think about the AI companies losing billions and billions every year, don't you think at some point they will just not have it anymore?

      • martheen 7 minutes ago
        Companies that only produce LLMs will downsize or merge once the progress plateau, but major companies with LLM division can afford to keep spending if the bean counters figure out it do increase their market share.
        • Zeruxe 4 minutes ago
          Let's say the big companies can sustain the losses for now, surely at some point they still need to justify the massive losses. If progress plateaus while the infrastructure compute costs just keeps going up. Wouldn't that technically eventually even force the biggest players in the game to reconsider?
  • AndrewKemendo 11 minutes ago
    Please define what you mean by AI
  • verdverm 1 hour ago
    The ratios are very different in The Worried West vs The Rest
    • Zeruxe 1 hour ago
      I mean you are probably right, I think I came by a survey that showed that the concern is higher in "wealthier countries"

      What more interested in is if people are just against AI itself, or just worried about how it's being developed and deployed.

      Besides, "the worried west" also probably takes up the majority of the AI usage.

      • verdverm 59 minutes ago
        China is on pace to process the most tokens this year last I saw

        The interesting aspect of The West is a large portion of people are using it, liking it, and fearing it all at the same time

        • Zeruxe 54 minutes ago
          I mean I definitely see your point of view, I just don't think those things are VERY contradictory. You can find it useful while still being concerned about its long-term consequences.

          I think people or rather especially Engineers are just afraid to fall back and not be able to catch up if they completely drop AI. Which is why they use it even though some of them might not be very willing to.

          Im curious to know if people that fear it, also don't want to see the development go well, or if they are still for the development. Perhaps the former right?

          • verdverm 43 minutes ago
            as an engineer, you cannot not use it because

            1. adversaries will, ai catches human error in review, you put others at risk by not using it

            2. companies are asking and not hiring ai negative people, it's changing our profession and they don't want luddites

            • Zeruxe 37 minutes ago
              1. To answer your first point, don't get me wrong again. I understand what you mean by catching human errors and review. But it also opens other doors to "ai problems". AI definitely introduces it's own errors, there are cons to using it not only pros.

              2.But that's exactly my point, Engineers feel forced to adopt AI to remain competitive, but high adoption rates in engineering professions don't neccesarily mean positive attitue towards it. The companies just want shipping..shipping.. They don't even care if the engineers understand the concept of what they're building.

              I feel like the use of these habits will be biting them in the butt a few years ahead.. people should really be worried about these new workflows more than what they currently are - do I make sense?

              • verdverm 25 minutes ago
                > I feel like the use of these habits will be biting them in the butt a few years ahead

                Sounds like you are not using them in a professional software setting?

                Like any tool, it's how you wield it, there will be dumb people and people who show the real power. Where I'm working, Ai is improving code and documentation quality. It's not magic pixie dust, you have to be intentional and in-the-loop

                The world of software development has fundamentally changed, there are new required tools, don't be a luddite if you want to keep your job. Like imagine if a potential hire said they were unwilling to use git, would you hire them? We use VCS for a reason, you cannot do your job without it.

                • Zeruxe 21 minutes ago
                  Trust me, I sort of agree with you and we are in the same boat.

                  But that is also the question I ask myself.. Is it really just a tool ? can we really use the same comparison as when the calculator came out ?

                  I am not opposed to using it, I am rather concerned about where this road will eventaully lead us.

                  I'm not arguing that AI can't improve productivity or code quality. I'm questioning what happens when developers become so reliant on it that their ability to reason through problems independently starts deteriorating.

                  • verdverm 19 minutes ago
                    To me, the dysfunctional media ecosystem and fear mongering campaign by Big Ai has done more damage than the technology itself
                    • Zeruxe 15 minutes ago
                      Do you think companies are deliberately exaggerating AI's capabilities to attract investment?
  • orionblastar 56 minutes ago
    I am for AI, but it is a puppet come to life like Pinocchio, and needs a Jiminy Cricket for a conscience. The AI needs morals and ethics; otherwise, it causes trouble and bad results.
    • lf88 36 minutes ago
      This goal seems flawed to me. There's no universal agreement on "morals and ethics". Superficially people may agree on some general principles, but if you go into the details you'll likely find substantial differences.
      • Zeruxe 33 minutes ago
        totally! and this is what I think can be really dangerous if we try to implement such things trying to make it "conscious".
    • Zeruxe 52 minutes ago
      but then, who is to program these so called morals and ethics? I feel like there would be an unavoidable BIAS when integrating morals into it..
  • efren6 1 hour ago
    [dead]