Why are AI experts more hopeful about the future of artificial intelligence, while the American public remains hesitant? A recent Pew Research study breaks this down, offering data-driven insight into the divide—and why it matters for tech companies building the future.
AI’s Impact: Experts See Promise, the Public Isn’t Convinced
More than half of AI experts (56%) believe AI will have a positive impact on the U.S. over the next 20 years. Only 17% of the general public feels the same.
“Optimism About AI’s Impact on the U.S. (Next 20 Years)”
This gap reflects a broader disconnect in expectations, and it’s crucial for builders and marketers in the space to recognize the credibility challenge.
It’s a classic case of insider optimism vs. outsider anxiety—like developers loving beta software, while users just want something that won’t crash.
Personal Benefits? Not Widely Expected by the Public
When asked whether they expect to personally benefit from AI advances, 76% of experts say yes. Just 24% of the public agree.
“Belief That AI Will Personally Benefit Them”
This underlines an opportunity for better communication: companies must show—not just tell—how AI improves people’s daily lives.
It’s the difference between watching AI from the front row… and watching it from the cheap seats, wondering if you’re going to lose your job or your privacy.
Job Loss Fears: A Top Concern for Americans
Job fears are front and center. People expect AI to replace cashiers, factory workers, even journalists and coders.
Experts might say, ‘We’re automating the boring stuff,’ but people hear, ‘We’re automating you.’
Big distinction.
Americans anticipate AI will wipe out jobs in key sectors:
-
Cashiers: 73%
-
Factory Workers: 67%
-
Journalists: 59%
-
Software Engineers: 48%
“Public Expectation of Job Loss Due to AI”
While some experts agree with these projections, they often emphasize job transformation over elimination—another messaging nuance for GTM teams to address.
Shared Demand: More Control, Better Oversight
Despite differing optimism levels, both the public and experts want more control over how AI is used—and doubt current government oversight is up to the task.
“Public & Expert Sentiments on AI Control and Oversight”
Now here’s where both groups agree: no one trusts the current oversight setup.
Imagine building a rocket ship with duct tape and a paper manual—yeah, that’s how most folks feel about AI governance.
And frankly, they’re not wrong.
There’s alignment here: AI builders must include opt-out mechanisms and advocate for meaningful policy involvement to bridge this trust gap.
Trust and Representation: The Underlying Factors
Only a quarter of the public feels represented in how AI is designed. And many see the same gaps—gender, racial, and socioeconomic—in the teams building this tech.
That’s a credibility problem, not a tech problem. And it matters.
Trust in AI systems is low, and perceived lack of representation—especially of women and people of color—fuels public concern.
“Trust and Representation in AI”
Tech leaders must embed inclusive practices into product design—not just because it’s the right thing, but because the market demands it.
Final Thought: Aligning Perception with Progress
Bridging the optimism gap means more than evangelizing AI. It demands clear, inclusive communication and visible commitment to user outcomes.
For founders in the restaurant tech space or broader vertical SaaS, this isn’t theoretical. It’s GTM strategy.
So what do we do with this? If you’re building in restaurant tech or any vertical SaaS space, this isn’t just a survey—it’s a strategy cue.
Close the gap. Communicate clearly. Show how your product actually helps.
Because if AI is the future, we better make sure everyone feels invited.
Need help doing that? Need help building trust into your sales, marketing, or partnership strategy?
