The Current #1: A Case Study in Consumer Gen AI Trust

The Current is a bi-weekly series from NEA on the developments impacting consumer technology. Each installment examines a trend, disruption, or opportunity with consumer data. Posts are concise, informative, and always current.

*Find the latest publications of The Current on NEA's website.

The New York Times?is generating its own headlines about generative AI lately.?The ongoing legal battle between The Times and OpenAI centers on copyright law, but it also prompts a larger question about generative AI interactions. How do users value answers relative to the source??

Our consumer panel answered this question with regard to the news media, but the insights apply to broader?AI applications?— AI tutors, financial copilots,?health?clinicians, shopping assistants, really any interaction where consumers trust generative AI output without total transparency into its inputs.?

I see consumer preference for how AI applications accredit information as a gradation of sensitivity — from decisive to indifferent — roughly categorized across four grades:?

• Decisive sensitivity: Refusal to use generative AI platforms for news consumption, due to lack of trust relative to traditional media
• Selective sensitivity: Selective trust depending on the specific source the generative AI platform trained on (e.g., the New York Times but?not?Fox News)
• Conditional sensitivity: Use of generative AI platforms for news consumption conditional on training on generally trusted data sources (without distinction of one source relative to another)
• Indifference: Unconditional, comprehensive trust in generative AI platforms for news consumption

Our survey panel, when asked in plain English, is overwhelmingly conditional or indifferent. My interpretation of the collective response, also in plain English, is:?just give me the answer.

But certainly, trust varies by inquiry. With a digestible but distant media subject held constant, we progressed our panel from a factual question to granular one to a subjective to a projective – a case study within a case study

Our data shows trust erodes as questions become more subjective, hypothetical, and negative. But distrust, even when overwhelming, is relative. We asked the same set of questions again – but substituting a generic AI platform for the respondent’s preferred news outlet, like the Times. Readers might have to squint to see the difference:

The consumer perspective can inform product decisions across applications beyond news. A fintech copilot, for instance, might need to cite sources or trigger human confirmation when making projections or fielding subjective inquiries. A mental health AI clinician might need to supplement its responses with clinical data to improve trust when answering granular medical questions.

Reach out to?[email protected]?to continue the conversation.

Notes

This consumer survey was conducted among a representative sample of 150 adults aged 18 to 30 living in the United States. The survey was fielded using the Pollfish platform during March 2024. Pollfish partners directly with app developers; the developer defines an appropriate and specific non-cash incentive in exchange for completed surveys that benefit real consumers but doesn’t motivate them to become career panelists. Please note that as with all survey research, there is a potential for sampling error and other forms of bias. Results should be interpreted as an indication of sentiment among the target population rather than an exact measure.

The information provided in this blog post is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended to be investment advice, or recommendation, or as an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy an interest in any fund or investment vehicle managed by NEA or any other NEA entity. New Enterprise Associates (NEA) is a registered investment adviser with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). However, nothing in this post should be interpreted to suggest that the SEC has endorsed or approved the contents of this post. NEA has no obligation to update, modify, or amend the contents of this post nor to notify readers in the event that any information, opinion, forecast or estimate changes or subsequently becomes inaccurate or outdated. In addition, certain information contained herein has been obtained from third-party sources and has not been independently verified by NEA. Any statements made by founders, investors, portfolio companies, or others in the post or on other third-party websites referencing this post are their own, and are not intended to be an endorsement of the investment advisory services offered by NEA.

NEA makes no assurance that investment results obtained historically can be obtained in the future, or that any investments managed by NEA will be profitable. To the extent the content in this post discusses hypotheticals, projections, or forecasts to illustrate a view, such views may not have been verified or adopted by NEA, nor has NEA tested the validity of the assumptions that underlie such opinions. Readers of the information contained herein should consult their own legal, tax, and financial advisers because the contents are not intended by NEA to be used as part of the investment decision making process related to any investment managed by NEA.