Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Lost Sams and Missing Fei-Feis: Why America Needs AI Guides Now

Opinion

Lost Sams and Missing Fei-Feis: Why America Needs AI Guides Now

Students studying robotics.

Getty Images, eyesfoto

In 2018, Economist Raj Chetty and his colleagues revealed a sobering truth: talent is everywhere, but opportunity is not. Their research on "Lost Einsteins" demonstrated that countless young Americans with the potential to be great inventors never get the chance to develop their skills simply because they lack exposure to innovation and mentorship. The data was clear: if a child grows up in an area with a high concentration of inventors, they are far more likely to become one themselves. But for too many, particularly those in rural and lower-income communities, the door to innovation remains closed. Failure to find those “Lost Einsteins” has deprived us all of a better future. Chetty forecasted that "if women, minorities, and children from low-income families were to invent at the same rate as white men from high-income (top 20%) families, the rate of innovation in America would quadruple." That’s a more prosperous, dynamic America.

The introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) carries the promise of realizing that brighter future if we learn from our prior mistakes. A lack of broad exposure among our youth to AI and the individuals shaping its development threatens to leave behind an entire generation of would-be entrepreneurs, scholars, and thought leaders. We risk creating "Lost Sams"—referring to OpenAI's Sam Altman as a stand-in for AI innovators—and "Missing Fei-Feis"—a nod to Stanford AI researcher Fei-Fei Li. Without urgent action, we will reinforce the existing gaps in AI leadership, limiting who gets to shape the future of this transformative technology.


To bridge this divide, we need a grassroots solution: AI Guides. These guides should be trusted figures within their communities—teachers, local entrepreneurs, librarians, and civic leaders—who are trained to introduce AI concepts in an accessible and engaging way. They must not only be knowledgeable about AI but also be representative of the communities they serve. Chetty’s research indicated that exposure to innovation had a larger impact on students when it involved a young person learning from someone who shared their background. If AI remains a field dominated by those from elite institutions and urban tech hubs, we will continue to miss out on the perspectives and innovations that could emerge from diverse backgrounds.

AI Guides can serve as the crucial link between communities and the AI revolution. They can run after-school programs, host workshops in community centers, and partner with local businesses to demonstrate real-world AI applications. By working with startups, big tech companies, and public universities, these programs can provide hands-on exposure to AI tools and career paths that young people might never have considered.

Why Local Action is Critical

Waiting for federal action on this front is a losing bet. While Washington debates AI regulations and corporate leaders focus on AI’s role in competition and security, communities must take the initiative. The disparities in AI adoption are stark. According to a study from the MIT Sloan School of Management, AI adoption is concentrated in high-income, urban areas, leaving rural and economically disadvantaged communities far behind. Similarly, research from Deloitte shows that trust plays a significant role in AI adoption, particularly among women. Building that trust in new technology requires learning opportunities in comfortable, familiar settings, not just top-down initiatives.

Consider the success of community-driven AI initiatives abroad. Estonia, for example, has launched an ambitious program to integrate AI education into high schools, ensuring students graduate with foundational AI literacy. The United States, in contrast, has no national strategy for ensuring AI exposure for young people beyond select STEM programs that often fail to reach the most underserved populations.

But this is not just an education issue—it’s an economic one. Studies from Harvard Business School show that women are already avoiding AI tools in the workplace, which could have long-term career consequences. Meanwhile, research from the National CIO Review highlights that younger generations are more likely to adopt AI, but that doesn’t mean they are receiving structured guidance on how to use it effectively. If we don’t intervene now, we risk deepening existing inequities in AI participation and leadership.

What AI Guide Programs Could Look Like

The AI Guide model can be easily adapted to different community needs. A few possibilities include:

  • Elementary School AI Clubs: Volunteers from local startups or university AI programs could run interactive sessions where kids learn about AI through games and simple coding exercises.
  • Community Center AI Nights: Public libraries or town halls could host monthly AI workshops, focusing on topics like how AI affects job markets, healthcare, and daily life.
  • Mentorship Pairing with AI Professionals: High school students interested in AI could be paired with mentors who work in AI-related fields, whether in big tech, academia, or startups.
  • AI for Small Businesses: Local entrepreneurs could be trained on how AI tools can help them streamline operations, from customer service chatbots to marketing automation.

These programs don’t require massive federal investment. They require committed local leaders, support from tech companies willing to provide training materials, and partnerships with public universities.

A Call to Action

We have the talent. What we need is exposure. AI Guides could be the key to ensuring that the next generation of AI innovators doesn’t come solely from Silicon Valley but from every corner of the country. Every town has the potential to produce its own AI pioneers but only if we provide young people with the mentorship and opportunities they need.

If we fail to act, we will look back in twenty years and see yet another generation of “Lost Sams” and “Missing Fei-Feis.” But if we rise to the challenge, we can ensure that AI’s future is shaped by a truly diverse and representative group of thinkers, creators, and leaders. It’s time to build the bridges that will connect every young mind to the possibilities AI has to offer.


Kevin Frazier is an Adjunct Professor at Delaware Law and an Emerging Technology Scholar at St. Thomas University College of Law.

Read More

artificial intelligence

Rather than blame AI for young Americans struggling to find work, we need to build: build new educational institutions, new retraining and upskilling programs, and, most importantly, new firms.

Surasak Suwanmake/Getty Images

Blame AI or Build With AI? Only One Approach Creates Jobs

We’re failing young Americans. Many of them are struggling to find work. Unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds topped 10.5% in August. Even among those who do find a job, many of them are settling for lower-paying roles. More than 50% of college grads are underemployed. To make matters worse, the path forward to a more stable, lucrative career is seemingly up in the air. High school grads in their twenties find jobs at nearly the same rate as those with four-year degrees.

We have two options: blame or build. The first involves blaming AI, as if this new technology is entirely to blame for the current economic malaise facing Gen Z. This course of action involves slowing or even stopping AI adoption. For example, there’s so-called robot taxes. The thinking goes that by placing financial penalties on firms that lean into AI, there will be more roles left to Gen Z and workers in general. Then there’s the idea of banning or limiting the use of AI in hiring and firing decisions. Applicants who have struggled to find work suggest that increased use of AI may be partially at fault. Others have called for providing workers with a greater say in whether and to what extent their firm uses AI. This may help firms find ways to integrate AI in a way that augments workers rather than replace them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

A visual representation of deep fake and disinformation concepts, featuring various related keywords in green on a dark background, symbolizing the spread of false information and the impact of artificial intelligence.

Getty Images

Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

At a moment when the country is grappling with the civic consequences of rapidly advancing technology, Parv Mehta stands out as one of the most forward‑thinking young leaders of his generation. Recognized as one of the 500 Gen Zers named to the 2025 Carnegie Young Leaders for Civic Preparedness cohort, Mehta represents the kind of grounded, community‑rooted innovator the program was designed to elevate.

A high school student from Washington state, Parv has emerged as a leading youth voice on the dangers of artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He recognized early that his generation would inherit a world where misinformation spreads faster than truth—and where young people are often the most vulnerable targets. Motivated by years of computer science classes and a growing awareness of AI’s risks, he launched a project to educate students across Washington about deepfake technology, media literacy, and digital safety.

Keep ReadingShow less
child holding smartphone

As Australia bans social media for kids under 16, U.S. parents face a harder truth: online safety isn’t an individual choice; it’s a collective responsibility.

Getty Images/Keiko Iwabuchi

Parents Must Quit Infighting to Keep Kids Safe Online

Last week, Australia’s social media ban for children under age 16 officially took effect. It remains to be seen how this law will shape families' behavior; however, it’s at least a stand against the tech takeover of childhood. Here in the U.S., however, we're in a different boat — a consensus on what's best for kids feels much harder to come by among both lawmakers and parents.

In order to make true progress on this issue, we must resist the fallacy of parental individualism – that what you choose for your own child is up to you alone. That it’s a personal, or family, decision to allow smartphones, or certain apps, or social media. But it’s not a personal decision. The choice you make for your family and your kids affects them and their friends, their friends' siblings, their classmates, and so on. If there is no general consensus around parenting decisions when it comes to tech, all kids are affected.

Keep ReadingShow less
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