AI 中文总结
研究瑞士居民对开源公民人工智能数据捐赠意愿，采用2x2组间析因设计实验，发现透明度和控制未显著影响捐赠行为，捐赠率高，定性分析显示居民因民主等因素愿捐赠，隐私计算表明高信任下感知利益与风险一致，界面设计影响小。
AI 中文摘要
公民人工智能系统日益支持民主参与，但与之交互可能会泄露敏感政治观点，这在改进人工智能模型与居民的隐私和同意期望之间造成了紧张关系。本研究考察了瑞士居民愿意捐赠其匿名聊天机器人对话以训练开源人工智能模型的透明度和用户控制条件。采用2x2组间析因设计评估数据营养标签和精细同意仪表盘如何影响捐赠决策。实验通过多语言在线调查进行，该调查配有由Apertus - 70B模型驱动的定制聊天机器人。对205名参与者的分析表明，透明度和控制都未显著影响捐赠行为。捐赠率总体较高（91.7%），产生了天花板效应，贝叶斯检验证实不存在处理效应。仪表盘提高了感知控制，但未提高捐赠率，高控制组参与者积极限制其数据使用设置。对120份开放式回答的定性分析表明，居民将捐赠视为对公共利益的贡献，其动机是民主参与、开源模型和研究，同时许多人认为他们的匿名查询是非个人的，因此风险较低。通过隐私计算来解释，在高机构信任下，高感知利益与低感知风险同时出现，因此权衡的双方达成一致，界面设计几乎没有影响力。提供控制权对提高捐赠率的作用不大，更多的是让居民定义其贡献的条款。
英文摘要
Civic AI systems increasingly support democratic participation, yet interactions with them may reveal sensitive political views, creating tension between improving AI models and residents' expectations of privacy and consent. This study examines the conditions of transparency and user control under which Swiss residents are willing to donate their anonymized chatbot conversations to train an open-source AI model. A 2x2 between-subjects factorial design evaluated how a Data Nutrition Label and a granular consent dashboard influence donation decisions. The experiment was delivered via a multilingual online survey featuring a custom chatbot powered by the Apertus-70B model. Analysis of the 205 participants revealed that neither transparency nor control significantly affected donation behavior. Rates were uniformly high (91.7% overall), producing a ceiling effect, and Bayesian checks confirmed the absence of treatment effects. The dashboard raised perceived control but not donation, and high-control participants actively restricted their data-use settings. A qualitative analysis of 120 open-ended responses indicates that residents framed donation as a contribution to the public good, motivated by democratic participation, an open-source model, and research, while many regarded their anonymized queries as non-personal and therefore low in risk. Interpreted through the privacy calculus, a high perceived benefit coincided with a low perceived risk under high institutional trust, so both sides of the trade-off aligned and interface design had little leverage. Offering control served less to raise donation than to let residents define the terms of their contribution.
Comments22 pages, 9 figures, 13 tables. Extended preprint version; a condensed version has been submitted to AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv
