With its potential to transform life as we know it, generative AI (GenAI) has taken the world by storm. Beneath the hype, knowing how people are using the technology and their attitude towards it could help us anticipate its trajectory. A new INSEAD survey of managers and executives across industries and continents may offer some clues.
The survey of some 1,200 INSEAD alumni illustrates that corporate decision-makers and employees alike are embracing the transformative technology. In fact, two out of three respondents were already using it in both their personal and professional lives.
Notably, respondents’ concerns about AI’s potential negative impact were not necessarily in line with popular misgivings. For example, their top worry was not that AI would kill jobs but its potential misuse, with the associated ethical and safety implications.
Indeed, respondents who said GenAI would benefit employees more than top leaders outnumber those that believed the reverse. This likely reflects a belief that AI will democratise access to information and improve efficiency for a wide range of jobs.
We reached out to 62,870 INSEAD alumni to obtain an early view of leaders’ views on GenAI. We also aimed to gather insights on the technology’s adoption, use cases and perceived impact. The 1,207 responses we received yielded statistically significant results.
Here’s a brief profile of our respondents:
The main reason (cited by 90 percent of participants) is that GenAI saves time and increases efficiency while relieving humans of mundane and tedious tasks. Respondents largely agreed (63 percent) that the technology entails progress. Close to half saw AI as interesting and exciting, while 35 percent believed it would improve life and society.
Not surprising, then, that 68 percent of respondents reported using GenAI in their personal lives, and 64 percent were using it at work. Only 15 percent had yet to engage with the technology.
As with any disruptive technology, GenAI has aroused anxiety as well as excitement. Discussion of negative outcomes has been prominent in public discourse, particularly around the economic impact. Yet in our survey, only 28 percent had concerns about AI leading to a loss of human jobs. Concerns about outsmarting humans (30 percent) and diminishing human connection (37 percent) were also low.
Instead, the most common concern cited in our survey (82 percent of respondents) was the potential for people to misuse AI. Surveillance, hacking and privacy issues were also highlighted (67 percent). The respondents’ focus on human choice may reflect their experience as executives and managers, relative to the general population reflected in the mass media.
We asked participants if they thought the value of GenAI would accrue to individuals or organisations. This population of mostly experienced executives and managers admitted that organisations were more likely than individual employees to benefit (43 percent). About half believed that individuals or organisations would benefit about the same (47 percent). Merely 9 percent thought individuals would benefit more than organisations.
We also explored perceptions on which roles in organisations – top leaders or most employees – would benefit more from the adoption of GenAI. Interestingly, 33 percent chose employees, potentially reflecting opinions that it will democratise access to information and improve efficiency for a wide range of roles. Another 36 percent said both top leaders and most employees would benefit equally, and 28 percent picked top leaders.
Related to that finding is respondents’ upbeat sentiments about AI’s influence on their careers. Nine in ten respondents were more excited than concerned, or equally excited and concerned, about GenAI’s impact on their prospects, indicating widespread confidence that AI can bring opportunities and advancements.
The most common estimate, given by 27 percent of participants, is that AGI would emerge in the next 5 to 10 years. This is followed by 23 percent predicting the development of AGI systems within the next two to five years, and 18 percent foreseeing it happening in the next 10 to 20 years.
On the extreme ends, 8 percent of respondents believed AGI can be realised in the next two years, whereas 12 percent thought it would take more than 20 years. These results reflect a wide range of perspectives on the pace of AI advancements, with a consensus towards significant progress within the next decade.
Interestingly, respondents in this part of the world tended to see AGI happening faster than those in North America, although this may reflect less interaction with GenAI in personal and professional contexts.
In sum, our findings underscore the complex and multifaceted perceptions of GenAI"s role in society. They reflect both the promise and the challenges it presents.
But remember, the survey took place in the early days of GenAI. As the technology bursts along at light speed, perceptions and expectations may likewise evolve quickly. Another pulse check may well be due soon.
We thank the research team, including Jamber Li from the National University of Singapore and research assistant Ethan Gail, for their efforts. We are also grateful to Zeina Sleiman, William Walsh, Austin Tomlinson and others at INSEAD Alumni Relations for supporting this research. Read the research paper here or here.
About the author Jason P. Davis is an Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship and Family Enterprise at INSEAD. He serves as Program Director for customized executive education programs about Digital Strategy & Leadership and the Leading Digital Transformation and Innovation open enrolment program.
This article was first published in INSEAD Knowledge.
First Published: Apr 23, 2024, 11:01
Subscribe Now