How Improving the NHS and Public Services Can Transform the UK’s Views of AI
Support for increasing AI use in the UK rises from a referendum-losing 45% to a referendum-winning 56% when people hear a practical public services case, while safety, fraud and loss of control outweigh job replacement fears.
New research from Teneo, the global CEO advisory firm, suggests the UK remains divided on artificial intelligence (AI), with no clear majority currently backing increased AI use; but support can be significantly increased when AI is framed as improving public services, especially the NHS.
Teneo’s new report, Persuasion with Precision: Winning the AI Argument in the UK, is based on a nationally representative poll of 2,004 adults, 102 Members of Parliament (MPs) and 502 technology professionals, alongside a series of in-depth interviews with communications specialists working on AI.
It found, as it stands, the UK is divided when it comes to support for increasing the use of AI, with just 45% supportive, a fifth (21%) undecided and a third (33%) opposed.
But that support grew to 56% among people who saw a short argument about AI’s potential benefits for UK public services. Other arguments, including the idea AI might make people better off, had no statistically significant effect.
When asked what they liked in the public services message, the people who saw it overwhelmingly pointed towards improvements in the NHS, especially around waiting times and reduced bureaucracy.
Andrew Feldman, CEO of UK Strategy & Communications, Teneo, said: “Our research shows that what resonates most is not abstract claims about Britain winning the ‘AI race’ or broad promises of prosperity, but a more practical argument centred on the NHS and public service delivery.”
“The next few months and years will be pivotal in shaping Britain’s AI future, whether we are on the leading edge, or trying to catch up with the big players in the U.S. or beyond. Our findings show if the most persuasive arguments can be identified, there is a meaningful group of ‘swing voters’ who would be supportive.”
Improvements in the health service also resonated strongly with MPs, who, when presented with a range of societal arguments in favour of AI, were most likely to be persuaded by the case for AI improving NHS diagnosis and triage and supporting new treatments for cancer and dementia (64%).
Asked for the most important drawback of AI, the public’s top concerns were that it is developing quicker than we can regulate or control it (24%), followed by fraud and abuse (22%). Taking people’s jobs (15%) and replacing creative industries (13%) were seen as less worrying. Concerns about safety cut across both public and political audiences, with MPs also saying the most persuasive arguments against expanding AI in the UK were fraud and abuse (31%) and unpredictable harms (29%).
Beyond identifying which arguments were most persuasive, the study revealed a clear gap between the confidence felt within the technology sector and the mood of the wider public.
While the technology sector agreed most people are already persuaded of the benefits of AI (73%), much less than half of the public (37%) feel optimistic about the impact of AI on them personally. Only 21% of technology professionals correctly identified the public services argument as the most persuasive. In fact, fewer than 2% of technology professionals surveyed correctly chose more than half of the strongest-performing arguments across the different ‘arguments’ tested. Nearly a quarter failed to get a single answer right – underlining the need for evidence-led communications rather than relying on instinct alone.