准备好应对什么？反思人工智能与机器人技术在应用和政策层面的准备情况
Ready for What? Rethinking AI and Robotics Preparedness for Adoption and Policy
AI总结：
该研究通过分析982名参与者对17项AI与机器人技术挑战的15200次评估，揭示了挑战复杂性、重要性与准备度的关联，指出政策制定者需关注挑战特有障碍及同一利益相关者的内部差异。
AI中文摘要：
加速人工智能与机器人技术应用的工作需要相关证据，以明确哪些社区已准备好采取行动，哪些社区仍需要支持。然而，利益相关群体的平均值可能会掩盖同一人评估不同挑战时出现的关系。我们分析了一项重复的卡片式调查，其中982名参与者对17项人工智能与机器人技术挑战进行了15200次评估。每项挑战在重要性、复杂性和准备度三个维度上按1-5分评分，其中准备度指感知到的社区准备状态和可用资源，而非个人能力或已实现的应用。由于参与者评估了多项挑战，该设计可区分稳定的个体间差异与挑战特有的个体内偏差。在同一受访者中，一项挑战的复杂性比通常评分高1分，对应准备度评分约低0.21分（p<0.001）。相比之下，总体上对挑战复杂性评分更高的受访者，并未系统性地报告更低的准备度（p=0.29）。重要性与准备度呈正相关，而异常高的复杂性会适度削弱这种关联。这些关系因挑战类别而异，且专业背景仍与调整后的准备度相关。在应用类卡片中，信心、信任及相关感知为准备度提供了大量额外信息，包括对未参与评估的参与者而言。对于政策制定者和组织而言，对利益相关者取平均值可能会掩盖挑战特有的障碍。准备度评估应同时保留利益相关群体之间的差异以及同一利益相关者在不同挑战间的变化。有效的应用与素养策略不仅应询问谁看起来已准备好，还应询问他们认为哪些挑战异常困难，以及潜在的限制因素是涉及实施、能力、保证还是资源。
英文摘要：
Efforts to accelerate AI and robotics adoption require evidence about where communities are ready to act and where support is still needed. Yet averages across stakeholder groups can obscure relationships that emerge when the same person evaluates different challenges. We analyse a repeated card-based survey in which 982 participants provided 15,200 evaluations of 17 AI and robotics challenges. Each challenge was rated on 1-5 measures of significance, complexity and readiness, where readiness refers to perceived community preparedness and available resources rather than personal competence or realised adoption. Because participants evaluated multiple challenges, the design separates stable between-person differences from challenge-specific within-person deviations. Within the same respondent, a challenge rated one point more complex than usual is associated with about 0.21 points lower readiness (p less than 0.001). By contrast, respondents who generally rate challenges as more complex do not systematically report lower readiness (p=0.29). Significance is positively associated with readiness, while unusually high complexity modestly weakens this alignment. These relationships vary across challenge families, and professional background remains associated with adjusted preparedness. On applied cards, confidence, trust and related perceptions add substantial information about readiness, including for held-out participants. For policymakers and organisations, averaging across stakeholders can hide challenge-specific barriers. Readiness assessments should preserve both differences between stakeholder groups and variation within the same stakeholders across challenges. Effective adoption and literacy strategies should ask not only who appears ready, but which challenges they find unusually difficult and whether the likely constraint concerns implementation, capability, assurance or resources.
