Artificial intelligence operates in a social context and affects everyone. Organizing science communication and engagement activities on the topic for all groups in society is therefore recommendable. However, research shows that mainly higher educated, already engaged citizens participate in science communication activities. To address this gap, our study collected insights from underrepresented citizens in the Netherlands regarding their views on and participation in science communication activities related to artificial intelligence. Using semi-structured interviews (n = 19), we qualitatively explored reasons for (non)participation. Participants knew more about AI than they initially reported, and worldviews were evoked in expressing both concerns and curiosity about AI. AI was deemed relevant but news about the topic was avoided due to a lack of trust. Non participation in engagement or communication activity was driven by both practical and social barriers. Following participants' advice, we suggest a personal approach could help to make these activities more inviting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dijkstra et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: