What 101 New Yorkers said at their door
In March 2026 we knocked on doors and asked 101 people about AI. Nobody was picked at random, so this speaks for these 101 people. It is striking anyway.
What they said
- 1 of 101would build superhuman AI as fast as possible.
- 58 of 101said it should never be built at all.
- 80 of 101think it is likely to become too powerful for humans to control.
- 83 of 101want an international treaty limiting how powerful AI can get.
- 59 of 101say AI is being developed too fast. One person said too slow.
And yet
- 32 of 101said a candidate promising strict limits on AI would make no difference to how they vote.
- 34 of 101have never used AI at all.
Concern is near-unanimous. Changing a vote over it is not.
How we asked
Three of us, nine days, door to door — 98 answers in New York City, nearly all in Brooklyn, and three in New Jersey. These are the people who opened the door to a stranger: more men than women, and whiter than the city. Every question is below in the words we read out, with every answer and how many of the 101 gave it. Counts, not percentages — 101 people is not a poll.
“Some companies are trying to build superhuman AI that would be far smarter than any human at nearly everything.”
Every question
When it comes to artificial intelligence, are you more excited, more concerned, or about equal?
- More excited18 of 101
- About equal37 of 101
- More concerned46 of 101
How often do you use AI — daily, weekly, monthly, or never?
- Daily33 of 101
- Weekly22 of 101
- Monthly12 of 101
- Never34 of 101
- Not sure0 of 101
Should superhuman AI be developed, or never developed?
- Should be developed38 of 101
- As fast as possible1 of 101
- With current regulations1 of 101
- With strict safety rules11 of 101
- Only after proven safe25 of 101
- Never58 of 101
- Don't know5 of 101
How likely is it that superhuman AI could become too powerful for humans to control?
- Very likely55 of 101
- Somewhat likely25 of 101
- Not very likely12 of 101
- Not at all likely4 of 101
- Don't know5 of 101
Should countries sign an international treaty — like the ones for nuclear weapons — to limit how powerful AI can become?
We asked this with the words “like the ones for nuclear weapons.” That comparison probably pushed support up.
83 of 101 supported in total
- Strongly support60 of 101
- Somewhat support23 of 101
- Somewhat oppose4 of 101
- Strongly oppose4 of 101
- Don't know10 of 101
Do you think AI is being developed too fast, too slow, or at about the right speed?
- Too fast59 of 101
- About right23 of 101
- Too slow1 of 101
- Don't know18 of 101
If a candidate promised strict limits on developing more powerful AI — would you be more or less likely to vote for them?
We changed one word in this question four days into the fieldwork. The 44 people answered before that day heard “strict controls”; the 52 answered after it heard “strict limits.” The 5 answered on the day of the change could be either — we cannot tell which. We changed the word because “controls” was being heard as the candidate wanting to have control, rather than to impose limits, which is close to the opposite of what we meant. Nothing here separates the two groups, so this is the weakest answer on the page: read it as a rough sense of direction and not as a measurement.
- Much more likely23 of 101
- Somewhat more likely28 of 101
- No difference32 of 101
- Somewhat less likely7 of 101
- Much less likely5 of 101
- Don't know6 of 101
How soon do you think AI could become far smarter than any human?
- Already has20 of 101
- Within 5 years40 of 101
- 5 to 20 years21 of 101
- More than 20 years8 of 101
- Never9 of 101
- Don't know3 of 101
Against the national numbers
Where national surveys have asked something close, our answers sit near theirs on general feeling and on timing — and far above them on never building it at all. Theirs are percentages because that is what pollsters publish; ours stay counts.
| Comparison | Results | How the questions differ |
|---|---|---|
| General feeling about AI — us in 2026, Pew's U.S. adults in 2023 | This survey: 18 of 101 more excited; 37 of 101 about equal; 46 of 101 more concerned. Pew: 10% more excited; 36% about equal; 52% more concerned; 2% no answer (n=11,201). | Pew asked about the increased use of AI in daily life; we asked about AI generally. Pew used a weighted national online panel. |
| Never develop superhuman AI — us in 2026, FLI's U.S. adults in 2025 | This survey: 58 of 101 Bryson Gillette/FLI: 30% (n=2,000) | Different definitions and answer wording. FLI read respondents a much longer description of superhuman AI; compare only the “never develop” answer. |
| Superhuman AI already here or within five years — us in 2026, FLI's U.S. adults in 2025 | This survey: 60 of 101 Bryson Gillette/FLI: 49% (n=2,000) | We asked when AI could become far smarter than any human; FLI asked when its longer version of superhuman AI would be built. The percentages combine different time buckets. |
Sources: Pew Research Center, American Trends Panel Wave 132 (July 31–August 6, 2023; n=11,201 U.S. adults) and Bryson Gillette Insights / Future of Life Institute, Opinions on Advanced AI Development (September 29–October 5, 2025; n=2,000 U.S. adults).
Not apples to apples: ours is a door-to-door sample of 101, nearly all in Brooklyn; the national surveys used weighted samples, different modes and dates, and different wording.
Who answered
Age
Self-reported · 3 declined · n=98
| Age | Count |
|---|---|
| 18-24 | 13 of 98 |
| 25-34 | 23 of 98 |
| 35-44 | 21 of 98 |
| 45-54 | 18 of 98 |
| 55-64 | 11 of 98 |
| 65+ | 12 of 98 |
Gender, observed by the canvasser
Observed by canvasser. · n=101
| Gender, observed by the canvasser | Count |
|---|---|
| Male | 62 of 101 |
| Female | 39 of 101 |
Ethnicity, recorded by the canvasser
Recorded by the canvasser, not self-identified. · n=101
| Ethnicity, recorded by the canvasser | Count |
|---|---|
| White | 63 of 101 |
| Black | 14 of 101 |
| Hispanic | 11 of 101 |
| Asian | 1 of 101 |
| Other/Unspecified | 12 of 101 |