July 1, 2026
By Ryan D. King and Stephen M. Gavazzi
 

As the midterm elections approach and the political parties stress their differences, Ohioans across the political spectrum seem to share a common sentiment on artificial intelligence: use it productively but regulate it, and keep humans in control.

That was the takeaway of a recent survey of 501 Ohio adults, asking about their AI views and usage. The study was conducted by two Ohio State professors: Ryan D. King, professor of sociology and divisional dean of social and behavioral sciences, and Stephen M. Gavazzi, professor in the College of Education and Human Ecology and director of CHRR at The Ohio State University.

The survey's timing proved apt. A small but determined group of Ohioans recently descended on the Statehouse to protest the siting of large data centers. These citizens, some of whom spoke to the Select Committee on Data Centers, were conscientious about artificial intelligence, favorable towards some regulation, and diverse in their political leanings.

As one demonstration participant told The Columbus Dispatch, "People who normally would never agree on anything are suddenly working together because they started seeing the same things happening all over Ohio." 

Not losing control

The online survey was conducted by CHRR, a center for survey research and data services, between April 14 and May 12. The sample reflected a broad cross-section of Ohio residents: men and women in roughly equal numbers, a wide ideological range from liberal to conservative, and a heavily working-age population with many college-educated participants. The people were sourced from CHRR’s American Population Panel, a large, diverse collection of Americans ready to be surveyed on any topic.

The results were revealing.

The majority of Ohioans use AI regularly at work or home and believe its purpose is to make humans more productive, not to displace workers. And during a moment when the political left and right don't seem to agree on much, liberals and conservatives have remarkably similar dispositions towards AI: use it productively for human benefit, but don't lose control of it.

Nearly all Ohioans (95%) perceive themselves as having at least a basic understanding of AI, with more than half claiming a working or advanced knowledge of it.

It is also embedded in daily routines. Large majorities report using voice assistants (80%), interacting with chatbots (75%), and engaging with AI-generated content (76%).

Three quarters of Ohioans report using AI tools at least weekly for either personal or work-related purposes.

Serving humans

While the majority of participants use AI, and generally trust it to be safe, they have some clear expectations.

First, majorities want AI to help and advise, but not decide. For instance, a strong majority of participants (60% or more) express a great deal or fair amount of trust in AI to be safe and secure in the contexts of health, financial recommendations, K-12 educational tools, and public safety. However, most Ohio residents also feel that AI should not make legal decisions, diagnose medical conditions, or teach without human supervision.

Second, Ohioans want to ensure that AI serves human interests and operates with human oversight.

When asked what would make AI safe and trustworthy, more than 70% of participants mentioned human oversight over critical decisions.

Comparatively fewer participants selected independent safety audits, transparency, and robust privacy protections. In short, AI is seen as an assistive tool, but not an independent decision-maker.

Finally, a strong majority (about 71%) said the government should regulate AI to prevent harm, even if doing so slows innovation.

Something Ohioans agree on

Somewhat surprisingly, given the polarized political environment, Ohioans' views towards regulating AI were fairly consistent across the political spectrum.

Nearly equal percentages of self-identifying "extremely liberal" and "extremely conservative" participants thought that government regulation of AI was needed, even if it risks slowing down innovation (77%).

Participants identifying as moderately or slightly conservative were as likely as those identifying as moderately or slightly liberal to favor regulation (70% or more).

The data provides an opportunity for productive and bipartisan discussion of AI regulations. A clear mandate has appeared – most Ohioans, regardless of political leaning, want regulation. This sentiment appears to align with that of thoughtful leaders in the tech sector.

Stanford's Fei-Fei Li of the Institute for Human-Centered AI has written that "AI must augment human capability, not replace it... It must always respect the agency and dignity of people." 

For policymakers, finding the balance between innovation and oversight isn't just a problem. The survey suggests it’s a directive.

A version of this piece originally appeared as a guest opinion article in The Columbus Dispatch on June 18, 2026.