Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Artificial Intelligence in Election Campaigns: Perceptions, Penalties, and Implications

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2408.12613 v2 pith:3JINBP26 submitted 2024-08-08 cs.CY cs.AI

classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords campaignsdeceptiondeceptivepartiespublicartificialelectionelections
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

As political parties around the world experiment with Artificial Intelligence (AI) in election campaigns, concerns about deception and manipulation are rising. This article examines how the public reacts to different uses of AI in elections and the potential consequences for party evaluations and regulatory preferences. Across three preregistered studies with over 7,600 American respondents, we identify three categories of AI use -- campaign operations, voter outreach, and deception. While people generally dislike AI in campaigns, they are especially critical of deceptive uses, which they perceive as norm violations. However, parties engaging in AI-enabled deception face no significant drop in favorability, neither with supporters nor opponents. Instead, deceptive AI use increases public support for stricter AI regulation, including calls for an outright ban on AI development. These findings reveal a misalignment between public disapproval of deceptive AI and the political incentives of parties, underscoring the need for targeted regulatory oversight. Rather than banning AI in elections altogether, regulation should distinguish between harmful and beneficial applications to avoid stifling democratic innovation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Artificial Intelligence in Government: Why People Feel They Lose Control

    cs.CY 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    When government AI is framed as efficient, trust rises but perceived control falls; when it is framed as opaque, irreversible, or uncontestable, both trust and perceived control drop sharply.

Pith tools