March 2026 Global Dialogues Survey
Here’s what the world had to say about the AI economy
In Collaboration with the Collective Intelligence Project
Technological progress has always promised prosperity. But as AI moves from abstract promise to daily reality, the focus must shift to the human experience. We surveyed 1,023 people across 62 countries to bridge the gap between technical progress and human priority—exploring what the world truly needs, expects, hopes for, and fears from the AI economy.
Key Findings
Anna Yelizarova
AI Is Here - What Now?
Most debates about AI seem to focus on whether it is good or bad, but tend to miss one very important fact - AI is here. The question, then, should be how we create a world where everyone can benefit from what is already a reality.
That is exactly what we wanted to find out when we launched the new Global Dialogues Survey alongside our colleagues at the Collective Intelligence Project. The survey, of more than 1,000 people across 60 countries, asked everyday people, not policymakers, executives or technical experts, what they want from AI's economic future and how they believe its gains should be governed.
It revealed fascinating global similarities, and some marked regional differences that should be making anyone who thinks they know what people want from AI reflect.
Much of the polling on AI, particularly in the United States, has found a public that is deeply negative about the technology. Globally, the picture is different and much more optimistic. What came back is a public that holds two things in its head at once. Seventy-two percent say AI has a net positive effect on their lives, and sixty percent personally know someone who has lost a job to it. These are often the same people. Sixty percent believe AI will have a net negative impact on the availability of good jobs. And only nine percent trust their government to manage the gains AI is expected to generate.
That trust gap should make us pause. People are not rejecting AI. They are telling us the institutions meant to manage its consequences are not set up to do so — and they know it.
Which institutions do people trust?
"To what extent, if at all, do you trust [institution] to do what is right?"
Governments
3%
24%
17%
32%
24%
Small businesses
8%
44%
28%
16%
4%
Large corporations
6%
22%
21%
28%
23%
Social media companies
2%
13%
22%
30%
32%
Companies building AI
6%
27%
27%
24%
16%
Public utility companies
5%
38%
32%
18%
7%
Public research institutions
19%
51%
20%
8%
2%
Strongly trust
Somewhat trust
Neither
Somewhat distrust
Strongly distrust
There's a paradox here. When asked what they most wanted AI to deliver for their communities, people named public services. But when asked to manage a pool of AI-generated wealth themselves, sixty-seven percent said resources should go directly to individuals, not through governments or local organizations. People want public services but don't trust public institutions to deliver them. That gap between what people want and who they trust to deliver it is one of the findings that most deserves attention from policymakers.
One finding that deserves particular attention. When offered a choice between a universal basic income and job guarantee programs if AI displaces work at scale, 52 percent chose jobs. This was consistent across regions and income levels, including among people already in financially precarious situations. It challenges a narrative that has been influential in Silicon Valley and some policy circles: that a world without work is something most people would welcome if the money were right. People are not asking to be compensated for losing their livelihoods. They are asking to keep them.
Guaranteed jobs or guaranteed income — which future do people prefer?
"Which world would you rather live in?
Guaranteed Jobs Society
Work stays central. Government guarantee jobs for all.
Guaranteed Income Society
AI does most work. Everyone receives enough to live well.
31%
21%
9%
20%
19%
Strongly:
Guaranteed Jobs
Somewhat:
Guaranteed Jobs
No
preference
Somewhat:
Guaranteed Income
Strongly:
Guaranteed Income
And when people do support sharing AI's economic gains, the reasoning matters. Forty-six percent say those gains should be shared because AI is built on shared human knowledge, not because redistribution offsets a harm. That is a property claim, not a welfare argument. People are saying: this was built on what we all contributed, so we all have a stake in what it produces. That distinction has real implications for how governance frameworks are designed and how they are justified to the public.
The top three things respondents wanted from AI for their communities were the creation and protection of jobs, more accessible healthcare, and better education, each at 21 percent.
What would make AI beneficial for your community?
Coded themes from open-ended responses on what would make AI beneficial
Create/protect jobs
21%
Make healthcare accessible
21%
Improve education quality
21%
Be accessible to all
16%
Be affordable/free
12%
Be controlled locally
10%
Improve government/public services
8%
Fight corruption
7%
Provide clean energy/water
6%
Ensure safety/privacy
6%
Reduce inequality
5%
Improve infrastructure
5%
Help with farming
3%
Work in local languages
1%
0
5
10
15
20
25
AI is projected to add up to $15.7 trillion to the global economy by 2030. The question this survey forces is not whether those gains will materialize, but who they will reach — and whether the institutions we have are the ones that can deliver them. Right now, the public's answer to that second question is clear, and it is no.
To find out more, explore our full findings here.
The Global Dialogues survey was designed and conducted by human researchers, and recruited respondents across the economic spectrum — including those most exposed to AI and the least likely to have adopted AI as a tool.