Author
Abstract
Efforts to accelerate AI and robotics adoption require evidence about where communities are prepared to act and where support is still needed. However, conclusions based mainly on average differences between people or stakeholder groups can obscure relationships that emerge when the same person evaluates different challenges. We address this problem using a repeated card-based survey in which 982 participants provided 15,200 evaluations of 17 AI and robotics challenges. Each challenge was rated on common 1-5 measures of significance, complexity and readiness, where readiness refers to perceived community preparedness and available resources rather than personal competence or realised adoption. Because each participant evaluated multiple challenges, the design separates stable differences between respondents from challenge-specific deviations within the same respondent. This distinction materially changes the interpretation of preparedness. Within the same respondent, a challenge rated one point more complex than their usual level is associated with approximately 0.21 points lower readiness ($p<0.001$). By contrast, respondents who generally rate challenges as more complex do not systematically report lower readiness ($p=0.29$). Significance is positively associated with readiness, while unusually high complexity modestly weakens this challenge-specific alignment. These relationships also vary strongly across challenge families, and professional background remains associated with adjusted preparedness assessments. On applied cards, confidence, trust and related perceptions provide substantial additional information about readiness, including for held-out participants. For policymakers and organisations, the findings show that averaging across stakeholders can hide challenge-specific barriers. Readiness assessments should therefore preserve both differences between stakeholder groups and variation within the same stakeholders across challenges. Effective adoption and literacy strategies should ask not only \emph{who} appears ready, but \emph{which challenges} they find unusually difficult and whether the likely constraint concerns implementation, capability, assurance or resources.
Suggested Citation
Wang, Peng, 2026.
"Ready for What? Rethinking AI and Robotics Preparedness for Adoption and Policy,"
SocArXiv
rqytf_v1, Center for Open Science.
Handle:
RePEc:osf:socarx:rqytf_v1
DOI: 10.31235/osf.io/rqytf_v1
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:rqytf_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://socarxiv.org .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.