Artificial Intelligence in Government: Why People Feel They Lose Control

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in public administration is expanding rapidly, moving from automating routine tasks to deploying generative and agentic systems that autonomously act on goals. While AI promises greater efficiency and responsiveness, its integration into government functions raises concerns about fairness, transparency, and accountability. This article applies principal-agent theory (PAT) to conceptualize AI adoption as a special case of delegation, highlighting three core tensions: assessability (can decisions be understood?), dependency (can the delegation be reversed?), and contestability (can decisions be challenged?). These structural challenges may lead to a "failure-by-success" dynamic, where early functional gains obscure long-term risks to democratic legitimacy. To test this framework, we conducted a pre-registered factorial survey experiment across tax, welfare, and law enforcement domains. Our findings show that although efficiency gains initially bolster trust, they simultaneously reduce citizens' perceived control. When the structural risks come to the foreground, institutional trust and perceived control both drop sharply, suggesting that hidden costs of AI adoption significantly shape public attitudes. The study demonstrates that PAT offers a powerful lens for understanding the institutional and political implications of AI in government, emphasizing the need for policymakers to address delegation risks transparently to maintain public trust.

What do people expect from Artificial Intelligence? Public opinion on alignment in AI moderation from Germany and the United States

Recent advances in generative Artificial Intelligence have raised public awareness, shaping expectations and concerns about their societal implications. Central to these debates is the question of AI alignment -- how well AI systems meet public expectations regarding safety, fairness, and social values. However, little is known about what people expect from AI-enabled systems and how these expectations differ across national contexts. We present evidence from two surveys of public preferences for key functional features of AI-enabled systems in Germany (n = 1800) and the United States (n = 1756). We examine support for four types of alignment in AI moderation: accuracy and reliability, safety, bias mitigation, and the promotion of aspirational imaginaries. U.S. respondents report significantly higher AI use and consistently greater support for all alignment features, reflecting broader technological openness and higher societal involvement with AI. In both countries, accuracy and safety enjoy the strongest support, while more normatively charged goals -- like fairness and aspirational imaginaries -- receive more cautious backing, particularly in Germany. We also explore how individual experience with AI, attitudes toward free speech, political ideology, partisan affiliation, and gender shape these preferences. AI use and free speech support explain more variation in Germany. In contrast, U.S. responses show greater attitudinal uniformity, suggesting that higher exposure to AI may consolidate public expectations. These findings contribute to debates on AI governance and cross-national variation in public preferences. More broadly, our study demonstrates the value of empirically grounding AI alignment debates in public attitudes and of explicitly developing normatively grounded expectations into theoretical and policy discussions on the governance of AI-generated content.

Artificial Intelligence in Deliberation: The AI Penalty and the Emergence of a New Deliberative Divide

Digital deliberation has expanded democratic participation, yet challenges remain. This includes processing information at scale, moderating discussions, fact-checking, or attracting people to participate. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) offer potential solutions, but public perceptions of AI's role in deliberation remain underexplored. Beyond efficiency, democratic deliberation is about voice and recognition. If AI is integrated into deliberation, public trust, acceptance, and willingness to participate may be affected. We conducted a preregistered survey experiment with a representative sample in Germany (n=1850) to examine how information about AI-enabled deliberation influences willingness to participate and perceptions of deliberative quality. Respondents were randomly assigned to treatments that provided them information about deliberative tasks facilitated by either AI or humans. Our findings reveal a significant AI-penalty. Participants were less willing to engage in AI-facilitated deliberation and rated its quality lower than human-led formats. These effects were moderated by individual predispositions. Perceptions of AI's societal benefits and anthropomorphization of AI showed positive interaction effects on people's interest to participate in AI-enabled deliberative formats and positive quality assessments, while AI risk assessments showed negative interactions with information about AI-enabled deliberation. These results suggest AI-enabled deliberation faces substantial public skepticism, potentially even introducing a new deliberative divide. Unlike traditional participation gaps based on education or demographics, this divide is shaped by attitudes toward AI. As democratic engagement increasingly moves online, ensuring AI's role in deliberation does not discourage participation or deepen inequalities will be a key challenge for future research and policy.