I ran two small randomized survey experiments (N=39 and N=40) on a US-based sample to test whether specific framings could shift public attitudes toward international cooperation on advanced AI. Study 1 used a Socratic "recursive distrust" exercise: walking people through who they'd trust with sole control over superintelligent AI until most participants concluded on their own that no single entity should be trusted. Study 2 used a vivid crisis scenario in which participants, as US President, had to decide whether to authorize a preemptive military strike against China after an AI breakthrough. Neither intervention significantly moved cooperation attitudes. But the baseline findings were somewhat interesting.

Across 79 respondents from both liberal and conservative demographics, people already overwhelmingly support international AI cooperation. On a 1-7 Likert scale, "No single country should have sole control over superintelligent AI" averaged above 6 in both studies. "A joint international project would be preferable to a competitive race" averaged 5.6-6.1. Meanwhile, trust in any single entity controlling superintelligent AI averaged around 2, and "almost no one can be trusted with sole, permanent control" averaged 6. This pattern held across political ideologies. The one place where politics did matter was the crisis scenario: 90% of conservatives authorized the military strike versus 20% of liberals, but even then, both groups' cooperation attitudes were statistically indistinguishable.

The pre-existing high support for international cooperation across the political spectrum was a bit surprising to me, though it matches the few other polls I've seen (mainly Control AI's polls come to mind). The possible implication for AI governance advocacy is that the bottleneck probably isn't public opinion. People may already hold the 'right' attitudes: they support cooperation, distrust unilateral control, and would accept slower national progress as a tradeoff.