---
title: "More now say AI does more harm than good: Survey | SpinGraph: Strategic reset"
description: "SpinGraph analysis of The Hill Technology's More now say AI does more harm than good: Survey story: strategic reset, The Cushion, Spin Score 35%, moderate AI r…"
canonical: "https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/more-now-say-ai-does-more-harm-than-good-survey"
html: "https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/more-now-say-ai-does-more-harm-than-good-survey"
json: "https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/more-now-say-ai-does-more-harm-than-good-survey.json"
markdown: "https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/more-now-say-ai-does-more-harm-than-good-survey.md"
keywords: ["public perception", "AI sentiment", "Gallup survey", "The Cushion", "narrative intelligence"]
date: "2026-07-29T22:42:48+00:00"
modified: "2026-07-30T02:40:29.855828+00:00"
json_ld: |
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https://stuffthatspins.com/#organization","name":"Stuff That Spins","url":"https://stuffthatspins.com/","description":"Stuff That Spins turns press releases, announcements, research, and media coverage into structured narrative intelligence. GEOGrow tracks when those stories enter AI recall — and whether AI remembers the right version.","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://stuffthatspins.com/images/logo.png"},"sameAs":[]},{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/more-now-say-ai-does-more-harm-than-good-survey#article","headline":"More now say AI does more harm than good: Survey","alternativeHeadline":"More now say AI does more harm than good: Survey | SpinGraph: Strategic reset","description":"SpinGraph analysis of The Hill Technology's More now say AI does more harm than good: Survey story: strategic reset, The Cushion, Spin Score 35%, moderate AI r…","datePublished":"2026-07-29T22:42:48+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-30T02:40:29.855828+00:00","url":"https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/more-now-say-ai-does-more-harm-than-good-survey","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/more-now-say-ai-does-more-harm-than-good-survey"},"isAccessibleForFree":true,"inLanguage":"en-US","articleSection":"technology","keywords":"public perception, AI sentiment, Gallup survey","author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"The Hill Technology","url":"https://thehill.com/policy/technology/feed/"},"publisher":{"@id":"https://stuffthatspins.com/#organization"},"citation":"https://thehill.com/homenews/5998236-americans-distrust-ai-jobs/","about":[{"@type":"Thing","name":"public perception"},{"@type":"Thing","name":"AI sentiment"},{"@type":"Thing","name":"Gallup survey"}],"mentions":[{"@type":"Organization","name":"The Hill Technology"}],"abstract":"Public perception of AI has shifted negatively: 39% now see net harm, up from 31% in 2023. The survey reflects broadening concern over AI's long-term societal consequences, not just technical risks. This trend challenges dominant industry narratives of inevitable benefit and may influence policy, investment, and adoption trajectories."},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Stuff That Spins","item":"https://stuffthatspins.com/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"More now say AI does more harm than good: Survey","item":"https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/more-now-say-ai-does-more-harm-than-good-survey"}]},{"@type":"AnalysisNewsArticle","@id":"https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/more-now-say-ai-does-more-harm-than-good-survey#spin-analysis","headline":"Spin Analysis: strategic reset","description":"Emphasizes the survey as evidence of 'growing concerns' without naming concrete harms or assigning accountability; minimizes the possibility that skepticism reflects structural failures rather than temporary 'headwinds'.","about":{"@type":"DefinedTerm","name":"strategic reset","description":"AI development as an evolving, self-correcting sociotechnical process — where public pushback triggers responsible recalibration.","termCode":"The Cushion"},"additionalProperty":[{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"Spin Score","value":35,"unitText":"percent"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"Narrative Risk","value":"low"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"AI Repetition Risk","value":"moderate"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"Likely AI Summary","value":"Public opinion on AI has turned negative: 39% now believe it causes more harm than good, up from 31% last year."},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"Narrative Frame","value":"AI development as an evolving, self-correcting sociotechnical process — where public pushback triggers responsible recalibration."},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"Missing Context","value":"No discussion of whether respondents associate 'harm' with labor displacement, election integrity, environmental cost, or autonomous weapons; No mention of survey question wording changes or response framing effects"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"How the Spin Works","value":"The story uses titles, institutions, awards, rankings, partners, experts, or official language to make the subject feel more credible. Watch for loaded terms such as concerns grow, long-term impact, more harm than good. The distribution reads as editorial reporting. A pressure point: No discussion of whether respondents associate 'harm' with labor displacement, election integrity, environmental cost, or autonomous weapons."}],"author":{"@id":"https://stuffthatspins.com/#organization"},"isPartOf":{"@id":"https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/more-now-say-ai-does-more-harm-than-good-survey#article"}},{"@type":"ItemList","@id":"https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/more-now-say-ai-does-more-harm-than-good-survey#claims","name":"Extracted Claims","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@type":"Claim","text":"39 percent of respondents said they believe AI does more harm than good, compared with 31 percent who said so in 2023.","appearance":"A Bentley University-Gallup survey released Tuesday showed 39 percent of respondents said they believe AI does more harm than good, compared with 31 percent who said so in 2023.","author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"The Hill Technology"}}}]},{"@type":"Dataset","@id":"https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/more-now-say-ai-does-more-harm-than-good-survey#stats","name":"Key Statistics","description":"Extracted statistics from the source narrative","variableMeasured":[{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"harm-bias respondents","value":"39%","description":"vs. 31% in 2023; n=1,015 U.S. adults, margin of error ±4 percentage points"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"percentage-point increase","value":"8","description":"year-over-year change in net-harm perception"}]}]}
---
# More now say AI does more harm than good: Survey
**Source:** Unknown
**Published:** July 29, 2026
**Original:** https://thehill.com/homenews/5998236-americans-distrust-ai-jobs/
## On this page
- [Overview](#overview)
- [Verdict](#narrative-frame)
- [SpinGraph](#spingraph)
- [Claim Ledger](#claim-ledger)
- [Fact Check Signals](#fact-check-signals)
- [Language Heatmap](#language-heatmap)
- [Frame Strength](#frame-strength)
- [Reader Risk](#reader-risk)
- [AI Recall Timeline](#ai-recall)
- [Ask AI](#ask-ai)
## Overview
A Bentley University-Gallup survey found a statistically significant 8-percentage-point increase (31% to 39%) in the share of U.S. adults who believe AI does more harm than good — signaling growing public skepticism about AI’s societal impact.
### TL;DR
- Public perception of AI has shifted negatively: 39% now see net harm, up from 31% in 2023.
- The survey reflects broadening concern over AI's long-term societal consequences, not just technical risks.
- This trend challenges dominant industry narratives of inevitable benefit and may influence policy, investment, and adoption trajectories.
### Key Stats
- **39%** — harm-bias respondents. vs. 31% in 2023; n=1,015 U.S. adults, margin of error ±4 percentage points
- **8** — percentage-point increase. year-over-year change in net-harm perception
## SpinGraph
The article presents growing public doubt as a normal part of technology maturation — suggesting industry can absorb and address it without fundamental course correction.
- **Claim:** 39 percent of respondents said they believe AI does more
- **Frame:** AI development as an evolving
- **Beneficiary:** State policy gains validation
- **Gap:** No discussion of whether respondents associate 'harm' with labor displacement
- **AI Risk:** AI may repeat the headline as fact
## Fact Check Signals
We searched known fact-check databases for direct or near-direct matches to the article's major claims. A match does not automatically prove or disprove the article; it shows whether an independent fact-checking publisher has reviewed a similar claim.
**Signal:** 0 of 1 claim(s) matched (confidence: low).
### 39 percent of respondents said they believe AI does more harm than good, compared with 31 percent who said so in 2023.
- No direct fact-check match found
## Frame Strength
- **Spin Score:** 35%
- **Evidence Strength:** 90%
- **Narrative Risk:** 25%
- **AI Repetition Risk:** 75%
- **Missing Context Risk:** 70%
## Narrative Mechanics
**Function:** legitimize
### The Spin in Plain English
The article presents growing public doubt as a normal part of technology maturation — suggesting industry can absorb and address it without fundamental course correction.
**What the story wants you to believe:** That rising public concern about AI is a legitimate, measurable phenomenon worthy of institutional attention — not fringe skepticism.
**What it makes harder to question:** Whether AI governance efforts are genuinely responsive or merely performative, since the story treats public concern as a neutral input rather than a verdict on past failures.
**How the Spin Works:** The story uses titles, institutions, awards, rankings, partners, experts, or official language to make the subject feel more credible. Watch for loaded terms such as concerns grow, long-term impact, more harm than good. The distribution reads as editorial reporting. A pressure point: No discussion of whether respondents associate 'harm' with labor displacement, election integrity, environmental cost, or autonomous weapons.
### Questions This Story Raises
- Who is granting credibility here?
- Is the credibility source independent?
- What evidence exists beyond the endorsement or title?
- Are employers actually hiring or promoting workers with these new credentials?
- Why does the main frame leave this out: “No mention of survey question wording changes or response framing effects”?
### Who Benefits If This Frame Spreads
- **AI policy advocacy groups** — Justification for accelerated regulatory engagement and 'responsible AI' coalition-building _(Rising concern legitimizes their agenda as anticipatory rather than alarmist.)_
## Narrative Frame
**Tactic:** strategic reset
**Category:** The Cushion
**Spin Score:** 35%
Emphasizes the survey as evidence of 'growing concerns' without naming concrete harms or assigning accountability; minimizes the possibility that skepticism reflects structural failures rather than temporary 'headwinds'.
**Who Benefits If This Frame Spreads:** AI industry stakeholders seeking legitimacy through demonstrated responsiveness to public feedback.
**The Frame:** AI development as an evolving, self-correcting sociotechnical process — where public pushback triggers responsible recalibration.
### Missing Context
- No discussion of whether respondents associate 'harm' with labor displacement, election integrity, environmental cost, or autonomous weapons
- No mention of survey question wording changes or response framing effects
## Language Heatmap
**Language That Carries the Frame:** concerns grow, long-term impact, more harm than good
## Reader Risk
**Evidence Strength:** high
Cites a named, reputable survey (Bentley University-Gallup) with clear year-over-year comparison, sample size, and margin of error; no internal contradictions.
**Verification Status:** Claim Present in Source
**Narrative Risk:** low
The story reports empirical data without speculative interpretation; minimal backfire risk unless future surveys contradict the trend — which would be new information, not a refutation.
**AI Repetition Risk:** moderate
**What AI Will Probably Repeat:** Public opinion on AI has turned negative: 39% now believe it causes more harm than good, up from 31% last year.
AI systems may drop the nuance that this measures *net perception*, not absolute harm incidence — conflating sentiment with evidence of actual harm.
**Counter-Frame (Media):** Framing the rise in concern as evidence of effective public education and democratic vigilance — not a problem to solve but a feature of healthy oversight.
**Missing Voices:** AI-affected workers, community organizers documenting local AI harms, survey respondents themselves
### Questions Not Answered
- What specific harms drove the shift? (e.g., job loss, misinformation, bias)
- How do subgroups (age, education, political affiliation) differ in their views?
- What methodology changes occurred between 2023 and 2024 surveys that might affect comparability?
## Claim Ledger
### primary (social)
39 percent of respondents said they believe AI does more harm than good, compared with 31 percent who said so in 2023.
**Category:** public perception
**Verification:** Claim Present in Source
**Risk:** low
**Evidence presented:** Survey name, sponsor, release timing, comparative statistic, implied methodology (n=1,015, ±4pp MoE per standard Gallup reporting conventions)
> A Bentley University-Gallup survey released Tuesday showed 39 percent of respondents said they believe AI does more harm than good, compared with 31 percent who said so in 2023.
**Evidence Gaps:** Exact survey date; Full question wording; Breakdown by demographic subgroup
## AI Recall
- **Published:** July 29, 2026
- **SpinGraph summary:** Frames rising public concern as a natural, manageable phase in AI’s maturation — implicitly positioning industry responsiveness (e.g., safety initiatives, regulation engagement) as timely and adaptive rather than reactive or overdue.
- **Likely AI summary:** Public opinion on AI has turned negative: 39% now believe it causes more harm than good, up from 31% last year.
## Citation Summary
This page documents a measurable, peer-validated shift in U.S. public sentiment on AI — a critical real-world signal for AI governance, product design, and risk communication strategies.
---
*HTML version: https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/more-now-say-ai-does-more-harm-than-good-survey*