This visual Data Story is based on findings from the 2025 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, a national survey of American museum visitors from AAM and Wilkening Consulting. Every year, the survey partners with individual museums to research their audiences and yield insights about their behaviors and preferences, both on an institutional and national level. (Learn more about the purpose and methodology of the survey here.) Interested in joining the 2026 edition on the themes of earned income and the meaning and value of museum experiences? Sign up now.

---

Jump to the text version

---

---

Most of us can’t go a day, or even an hour, without hearing about artificial intelligence (AI). It’s constantly discussed on the news, at work, and among family and friends. It’s everywhere!

As society considers what place AI should have in our daily lives, museums are a relevant part of the conversation as well. Visitors bring their thoughts, ideas, and feelings about AI with them when they interact with museum content, impacting their experience.

In an earlier Data Story,¹ we shared respondents’ thoughts on museum trustworthiness and credibility, and any concerns they had about museum credibility in the coming months and years:

“Do you currently feel that museums are trustworthy?
• If so, why do you think they are trustworthy?
• If not, why not?
• What concerns do you have about museums, trust, and credibility in the coming months and years?

If you have any further thoughts about the trustworthiness of museums, please share them here.”

This was an open-ended question, and although we didn’t ask about AI directly, it was a significant concern that came up as we coded the responses for qualitative analysis.

(What about those who didn’t mention any concerns about AI?

It’s important to note that just because a respondent didn’t comment on AI doesn’t mean they aren’t concerned…or that they are! It simply means we don’t know their stance since they didn’t discuss it.)

In this Data Story, we’ll focus on those who did comment on AI. Many responded emotionally and strongly, so we think there’s value in exploring their concerns a little deeper. This isn’t meant to offer a definitive verdict on AI use in museums. Rather, it’s an exploration of what museum-goers (and US adults more broadly) think about AI, so you can factor their concerns into your own decision-making.

We identified five main themes across respondents’ comments:

Concerns about accuracy and integrity of information presented

For many respondents, AI use would make them feel that the content published by museums could no longer be trusted. Most cite AI’s tendency to “hallucinate” and provide misleading information, behaviors that would cast doubt on the accuracy of information presented.

“Anytime I see something created by AI, it instantly leads me to at least question the accuracy of the information. AI has had many issues with incorrect or misleading information, and I believe this is not something museums should rely on.”

“While I understand that AI has some uses, I have little to no trust in what it produces.”

Concerns about AI replacing museum staff

When we asked museum-goers about what makes museums trustworthy and credible, a significant number of respondents said that the professional staff are central to museum credibility. Not surprisingly, many expressed concern and fear that AI would replace trusted staff.

“I worry that people working in museums will be replaced [by] AI for tours and info. Having knowledgeable people working in museums is part of the point…to ask questions, to learn from them and their excitement.”

“I trust museum admin [and] staff to present and inform the public with integrity. I hope that stays in human hands. I do not trust that AI can inform, describe, [or] comment on matters of Art with the deft perception a human can. Save that for office memos?”

Concerns about museums shifting focus from human creation to AI generation

Since museums are seen as places for and about humans, some respondents worry that AI could result in museums moving away from their fundamental purpose.

“Generative AI does pose a risk to the integrity of art museums, so there should be clear focus on human-created art, or at least a disclaimer if there is AI involvement.”

“Part of what is incredible about museums is that people did it. All the things were made by people, somehow. So I think it’s important that people remain at the heart of a museum and using something like AI is massively discrediting in my opinion.”

Concerns about the ethics of AI and its data sources

Some respondents see the results generated by AI as stealing from human creators, including artists, historians, scientists, designers, and other content producers.

“AI is theft.”

“AI art/images are essentially art theft. Any use of AI is stealing because it pulls from the work of other artists. I would caution the museum to make a note of this any time art that deals with AI is displayed, or in the event the museum decides to utilize AI options…”

Concerns that AI use won’t be disclosed to visitors

Respondents who mentioned transparency and disclosure were less emotional and more pragmatic in their comments. They were clear, however, that museums should be truthful about disclosing their use of AI…particularly for exhibitions.

“I expect museums to let visitors know when they use or display AI-generated content, and I hope that AI-generated content does not become the only source of content.”

“I do not trust nor do I support AI and I would be extremely disappointed and concerned if [a museum] were to start using AI to generate content. It would be enough to make me seriously consider not visiting anymore. But in any case, anything generated by AI should be clearly, visibly and unmistakably labeled as such.”

See what we meant by strong emotional responses? This was clearly a topic that resonated with respondents and deserved further exploration.

In January 2026, we followed up and asked a demographically-representative sample of over 2,000 U.S. adults two questions specifically about AI in museums.²

First, we wanted to learn what respondents expect from museums and the use of AI in their content. Our answer choices made a distinction between interpretive content (exhibitions) and marketing content (emails and websites).

“AI has changed how many of us receive content online (and in other places). We’d like to know what your expectations are about museum content and AI. Which of the following best describes your expectations?“

• I expect human beings to develop all content from museums, including exhibitions, emails…everything — 43%
• I’m OK with museum staff using AI to write emails and general website text, but not the text in exhibitions — 29%
• I’m OK with museum staff using AI to brainstorm ideas for exhibition text, but not to actually write the text — 19%
• I’m OK with museum staff using AI whenever they want, including in exhibitions — 9%

Here’s what we found: when it came to exhibitions, over 70% of respondents want no AI usage at all. Another 19% thought brainstorming ideas for exhibition text was OK, but not for writing the final text. Only 9% had no concerns.

There was also a higher level of comfort with staff usage of AI to write emails and general website text: only 43% said no to that.

(We acknowledge that there are some internal functions at museums that we didn’t ask about in this question [mainly for simplicity’s sake], and that there may be some tasks that respondents would find acceptable for museums to use AI to complete, such as for collections care or specimen identification.)

This data echoes comments from frequent museum-goers in 2025 who were concerned about AI being used for exhibits.

“I think that museums have a responsibility to produce their own explanations regarding material and to not rely on machine learning. I would find it difficult to support a museum who chose to use AI to produce content.”

Next, we asked about their thoughts on AI transparency. Would they want to know when a museum is using AI?

“If a museum uses AI to write any content, such as emails or exhibition text, do you want to know?“

• Yes, I want to know every time AI is used to generate content — 45%
• It depends. I want to know when AI is used in things like exhibitions, but I don’t need to know for emails or general website text — 36%
• I don’t need to be told; this is not an issue for me — 19%

Nearly half of respondents said they want to know every time AI is used. A little over a third, however, said it depends: if AI is used for work tasks like writing emails, they don’t need to know…but they do want to know when it’s used for creating exhibitions.

We found that museum-goers had similar opinions on AI transparency in 2025:

“I didn’t know that museums were starting to incorporate AI. I would hope that it’s not the only source of research, and that just like we have a variety of tools for different jobs, there’s a hybrid approach to its use. I think letting people know that it’s being used is helpful, open and honest.”

Did we find any demographic differences in how respondents answered these questions? Honestly, not really, but there were some trends:

• Younger adults were more likely to expect humans to do everything, while older adults were more likely to want transparency.
• While there was little difference across the political spectrum, we did see a difference when it came to inclusivity. People with anti-inclusive attitudes were significantly more likely to say they were OK with museum staff using AI whenever they want. And they were nearly twice as likely as people with inclusive attitudes to say AI transparency wasn’t an issue for them.

So, what have we learned from the concerned comments of museum-goers and preliminary data from the broader population of US adults?

• The use of AI causes some people to question the accuracy and integrity of information, including at museums.
• Some museum-goers are concerned that AI will replace the contributions of human creators and professional staff in museums.
• Many people feel museums should be dedicated to showcasing and celebrating humanity…so AI use would run counter to that mission.
• And, the majority of museum-goers and US adults want to see museums practice transparency when it comes to informing their visitors of any AI that is in use.

Ultimately, these findings point to two clear directives: be thoughtful and be transparent.

• Be thoughtful. Keep your audience’s concerns in mind as you develop AI policies.
• Be transparent. Let your audience know when you’re using AI so they can choose how they want to engage with the content you share.

(In the spirit of transparency, you may be wondering: Does Wilkening Consulting use AI?

We’re very sensitive to the privacy concerns of the public, especially when it comes to personally identifying information, and how our use of AI may reflect on museum clients engaging with our research. We’ve chosen to not use AI on our datasets and have no future plans to do so.)

---

Annual Survey of Museum-Goers Data Stories are created by Wilkening Consulting on behalf of the American Alliance of Museums. Sources include:

• 2025 Annual Survey of Museum-Goers, n = 98,904; 202 museums participating
• 2025 Broader Population Sampling, n = 2,079
• 2017 – 2024 Annual Surveys of Museum-Goers

¹ Trust and Responsibility to Community, Part 4: Trusting Museums in Fraught Times, January 29, 2025
² 2026 Broader Population Sampling of U.S. Adults, n = 2,045, fielded January 20–23, 2026

Data Stories share research about both frequent museum-goers (typically visit multiple museums each year) and the broader population (including casual, sporadic, and non-visitors to museums). See the Purpose and Methodology (Update) Data Story from September 11, 2025 for more information on methodology.

More Data Stories can be found at https://wilkeningconsulting.com/data-stories/.

© 2025 Wilkening Consulting, LLC