False consensus biases AI against vulnerable stakeholders

Abstract

The deployment of AI systems for welfare benefit allocation allows for accelerated decision-making and faster provision of critical help, but has already led to an increase in unfair benefit denials and false fraud accusations. Collecting data in the US and the UK (N = 2449), we explore the public acceptability of such speed-accuracy trade-offs in populations of claimants and non-claimants. We observe a general willingness to trade off speed gains for modest accuracy losses, but this aggregate view masks notable divergences between claimants and non-claimants. Although welfare claimants comprise a relatively small proportion of the general population (e.g., 20% in the US representative sample), this vulnerable group is much less willing to accept AI deployed in welfare systems, raising concerns that solely using aggregate data for calibration could lead to policies misaligned with stakeholder preferences. Our study further uncovers asymmetric insights between claimants and non-claimants. The latter consistently overestimate claimant willingness to accept speed-accuracy trade-offs, even when financially incentivized for accurate perspective-taking. This suggests that policy decisions influenced by the dominant voice of non-claimants, however well-intentioned, may neglect the actual preferences of those directly affected by welfare AI systems. Our findings underline the need for stakeholder engagement and transparent communication in the design and deployment of these systems, particularly in contexts marked by power imbalances.