Public perceptions of AI science and scientists relatively more negative but less politicized than general and climate science.

Using a weighted 2023-2025 national probability panel of US adults, we compared the perceived Credibility, Prudence, Unbiasedness, Self-Correction, and Benefit (i.e. Factors Assessing Science's Self-Presentation [FASS]) of AI scientists with those of scientists in general and climate scientists in particular. Our analysis reveals that respondents' composite perceptions of AI scientists are the most negative of the three, a difference driven by a facet of the Prudence factor, specifically the perception that AI science is causing unintended consequences; political ideology and patterns of media exposure are substantially more predictive of perceptions of climate science and science in general than of AI; and FASS and respondent ideology predict more variance in support for federal funding of the other two than of AI.