Assessing Artificial Intelligence Risk Perception Among Generation Z in Delhi NCR
Keywords:
Artificial intelligence, risk perception, generation Z, data privacy, algorithmic bias, AI ethics, Delhi NCRAbstract
This study examines the risk perception of Artificial Intelligence (AI) among Generation Z in the Delhi National Capital Region (NCR), a demographic that is highly engaged with digital technologies and AI-driven applications. The research aims to identify key concerns, attitudes, and awareness levels related to the societal, ethical, and technological implications of AI. A descriptive research design was adopted, integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches to ensure a comprehensive analysis. Primary data were collected from 120 respondents through structured questionnaires, supplemented by secondary sources to strengthen the conceptual framework. Analytical tools, including NVivo 11 for qualitative insights and SPSS along with Microsoft Excel for quantitative analysis, were employed to interpret the data. The findings reveal that Generation Z demonstrates a balanced yet cautious outlook toward AI. While respondents acknowledge the potential of AI to enhance decision-making, efficiency, and management of complex systems, significant concerns persist regarding job displacement, algorithmic bias, lack of transparency, data privacy risks, and system reliability. Notably, the lack of transparency in AI algorithms emerged as a major concern, reflecting growing awareness about explainability and accountability. The study underscores the need for robust regulatory frameworks, ethical governance, and increased digital literacy to foster trust and responsible AI adoption. Overall, the research highlights the importance of aligning technological advancements with societal expectations to ensure sustainable and ethical integration of AI.
References
De Freitas J, Uğuralp AK, Oğuz-Uğuralp Z, Puntoni S. Chatbots and mental health: Insights into the safety of generative AI. J Consum Psychol. 2022;32(4):734–748.
Pozzar R, Hammer MJ, Underhill-Blazey M, Wright AA, Tulsky JA, Hong F, et al. Threats of bots and other bad actors to data quality following research participant recruitment through social media: Cross-sectional questionnaire. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(10):e23021. 3. Akgun S, Greenhow C. Artificial intelligence in education: Addressing ethical challenges in K-12 settings. AI Ethics. 2022;2(3):431–440.
Anastasi S, Madonna M, Monica L. Implications of embedded artificial intelligence-machine learning on safety of machinery. Procedia Comput Sci. 2021;180:338–343.
Luusua A, Ylipulli J. Artificial intelligence and risk in design. In: Proc ACM Des Interact Syst Conf. New York: ACM; 2020. p. 1235–1244.
Darko A, Chan APC, Adabre MA, Edwards DJ, Hosseini MR, Ameyaw EE. Artificial intelligence in the AEC industry: Scientometric analysis and visualization of research activities. Autom Constr. 2020;112:103081.
Floridi L, Cowls J, Beltrametti M, Chatila R, Chazerand P, Dignum V, et al. AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds Mach. 2018;28(4):689–707.
Siau K, Wang W. Artificial intelligence (AI) ethics: Ethics of AI and ethical AI. J Database Manag. 2020;31(2):74–87.
Binns R. Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy. Proc Mach Learn Res. 2018;81:1–11.
Jobin A, Ienca M, Vayena E. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nat Mach Intell. 2019;1(9):389–399.
