Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

An AI future worth building

Opinion

artificial intelligence
Vithun Khamsong/Getty Images

Coral is vice president of technology and democracy programs and head of the Open Technology Institute at New America. She is a public voices fellow with The OpEd Project.

2023 was the year of artificial intelligence. But much of the discussion has centered around extremes – the possibility of extinction versus the opportunity to exceed human capacity. But Reshma Saujani, the founder of Girls Who Code, suggests that we don’t have to choose between ethical AI and innovative AI, and that if we focus solely on fear then that just might be the AI future we get. So how do we foster an AI future worth building?

In some ways, innovations like ChatGPT represent uncharted territory in the realm of technology. Having worked at the intersection of government and public interest technology for nearly 20 years, I know that AI is not new, and the past year’s intense focus mirrors previous digital tech waves. But I would offer that as we think about how AI evolves, there are three important lessons from the past that we should consider in order to properly harness the benefits of this technology for the public good.


The first lesson serves as a clear warning: Timelines are often detached from the technology's true readiness. Just as with autonomous vehicles and commercial Big Data initiatives, industry-set transformation timelines are often prematurely optimistic, driven by investor desires to scale. Much of this is what drives rapid deployment without the adequate social deliberation and scrutiny, thereby jeopardizing safety. We’ve seen the impacts on the road and in cities, and with AI we’re seeing the exponential growth of online nonconsensual images and deep fakes.

Second, these technologies have lacked the go-to market strategies that undercut their ability to scale. They have eventually stalled in funding and development, in part, I would argue, because they lacked a clear public value. While we can marvel at the idea of being picked up by an autonomous car or navigating a “smart city,” all of these technologies need paying customers. Government procurement cycles failed to transform cities into data-driven metropolises of the future, and AVs are too expensive for the average driver. OpenAI has only just released a business version for ChatGPT and pricing is not public. The monetization strategy of these tools are still in development.

During my tenure at the Knight Foundation, we invested $5.25 million to support public engagement in cities where autonomous vehicles were deployed to understand sentiment and engage communities on their deployment. Demonstrations and community engagement were essential to addressing the public’s skepticism and sparking curiosity. What was eye-opening to me was that regardless of how complex the technology, communities could envision beneficial use cases and public value. But their vision differed from technologists and investor priorities, as in the case of autonomous delivery technologies. Bridging this gap can speed up adoption.

Lastly, widespread adoption of AI is unlikely without the proper infrastructure. A peer-reviewed analysis recently released, showed that by 2027, AI servers may use as much annual electricity as Argentina. Such a massive amount of energy will undoubtedly raise concerns regarding AIs impact on the environment, but it also calls into question our capacity to meet the moment. Additionally, AI requires fast internet. The United States has only just begun to roll out $42.5 billion in funding to expand high-speed internet access so that we can finally close the digital divide. If we care about equity, we must ensure that everyone has access to the fast internet they need to benefit from AI.

To be sure, every tech advance has differences, so we cannot fully expect to use historical tech advances, like Smart Cities or autonomous vehicles, to predict how AI will evolve. But looking to history is important, because it often repeats itself, and many of the issues encountered by former technologies will come into play with AI, too.

To scale AI responsibly, fast, affordable internet is crucial but almost 20 percent of Americans are currently left out. Congress can take action by renewing programs for affordable internet access and ensuring Bipartisan Infrastructure Law investments align with an AI future. The public value of AI can be enhanced by not relying solely on investor interests. While most Americans are aware of ChatGPT, only one in five have actually used it. We need proactive engagement from all stakeholders – including governments, civil society and private enterprises – to shape the AI future in ways that bring tangible benefits to all. True public engagement, especially from marginalized communities, will be key to ensuring that the full extent of unintended consequences is explored. No group can speak to the impact of AI on a particular selection of people better than the impacted individuals, and we have to get better at engaging on the ground.

Some of the greatest value of AI lies in applications and services that can augment skills, productivity and innovation for the public good. Not only digital access, but also digital readiness, is essential to harness these benefits. Congress can mandate federal agencies invest in initiatives supporting digital readiness, particularly for youth, workers and those with accessibility challenges.

But there is no need to rush.

By taking a cue from historical tech advances, like Smart Cities and autonomous vehicles, we can usher in an AI revolution that evolves equitably and sets a precedent for technological progress done right. Only then can we truly unlock the transformative power of AI and create a brighter, more inclusive future for all.

Read More

Someone wrapping a gift.

As screens replace toys, childhood is being gamified. What this shift means for parents, play, development, and holiday gift-giving.

Getty Images, Oscar Wong

The Christmas When Toys Died: The Playtime Paradigm Shift Retailers Failed to See Coming

Something is changing this Christmas, and parents everywhere are feeling it. Bedrooms overflow with toys no one touches, while tablets steal the spotlight, pulling children as young as five into digital worlds that retailers are slow to recognize. The shift is quiet but unmistakable, and many parents are left wondering what toy purchases even make sense anymore.

Research shows that higher screen time correlates with significantly lower engagement in other play activities, mainly traditional, physical, unstructured play. It suggests screen-based play is displacing classic play with traditional toys. Families are experiencing in real time what experts increasingly describe as the rise of “gamified childhoods.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

Rising costs, AI disruption, and inequality revive interest in Louis Kelso’s “universal capitalism” as a market-based answer to the affordability crisis.

Getty Images, J Studios

Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

“Affordability” over the cost of living has been in the news a lot lately. It’s popping up in political campaigns, from the governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia to the mayor’s races in New York City and Seattle. President Donald Trump calls the term a “hoax” and a “con job” by Democrats, and it’s true that the inflation rate hasn’t increased much since Trump began his second term in January.

But a number of reports show Americans are struggling with high costs for essentials like food, housing, and utilities, leaving many families feeling financially pinched. Total consumer spending over the Black Friday-Thanksgiving weekend buying binge actually increased this year, but a Salesforce study found that’s because prices were about 7% higher than last year’s blitz. Consumers actually bought 2% fewer items at checkout.

Keep ReadingShow less
Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

US Capital with tech background

Greggory DiSalvo/Getty Images

Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

Techies, activists, and academics were in Paris this month to confront the doom scenario of internet shutdowns, developing creative technology and policy solutions to break out of heavily censored environments. The event– SplinterCon– has previously been held globally, from Brussels to Taiwan. I am on the programme committee and delivered a keynote at the inaugural SplinterCon in Montreal on how internet standards must be better designed for censorship circumvention.

Censorship and digital authoritarianism were exposed in dozens of countries in the recently published Freedom on the Net report. For exampl,e Russia has pledged to provide “sovereign AI,” a strategy that will surely extend its network blocks on “a wide array of social media platforms and messaging applications, urging users to adopt government-approved alternatives.” The UK joined Vietnam, China, and a growing number of states requiring “age verification,” the use of government-issued identification cards, to access internet services, which the report calls “a crisis for online anonymity.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The concept of AI hovering among the public.

Panic-driven legislation—from airline safety to AI bans—often backfires, and evidence must guide policy.

Getty Images, J Studios

Beware of Panic Policies

"As far as human nature is concerned, with panic comes irrationality." This simple statement by Professor Steve Calandrillo and Nolan Anderson has profound implications for public policy. When panic is highest, and demand for reactive policy is greatest, that's exactly when we need our lawmakers to resist the temptation to move fast and ban things. Yet, many state legislators are ignoring this advice amid public outcries about the allegedly widespread and destructive uses of AI. Thankfully, Calandrillo and Anderson have identified a few examples of what I'll call "panic policies" that make clear that proposals forged by frenzy tend not to reflect good public policy.

Let's turn first to a proposal in November of 2001 from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). For obvious reasons, airline safety was subject to immense public scrutiny at this time. AAP responded with what may sound like a good idea: require all infants to have their own seat and, by extension, their own seat belt on planes. The existing policy permitted parents to simply put their kid--so long as they were under two--on their lap. Essentially, babies flew for free.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) permitted this based on a pretty simple analysis: the risks to young kids without seatbelts on planes were far less than the risks they would face if they were instead traveling by car. Put differently, if parents faced higher prices to travel by air, then they'd turn to the road as the best way to get from A to B. As we all know (perhaps with the exception of the AAP at the time), airline travel is tremendously safer than travel by car. Nevertheless, the AAP forged ahead with its proposal. In fact, it did so despite admitting that they were unsure of whether the higher risks of mortality of children under two in plane crashes were due to the lack of a seat belt or the fact that they're simply fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less