We don’t have to accept the AI future we are being sold

Capitol Weekly welcomes Opinions on California public policy or politics. Please read our guidelines for opinion pieces before submitting an Op-Ed. Submissions that do not adhere to our guidelines will not be considered for publication. 

OPINION — There is a pervasive, and, I would say, promoted, idea that a future with AI at the helm is inevitable and that we, as a world, have no choice but to embrace it. The voices telling us this are very loud – but this doesn’t have to be our future. We have agency in how this all moves forward, even if it doesn’t feel like it. 

To be clear, I believe in the potential of advanced technologies to be beneficial to humanity, but it is crucial that we question their inevitability, especially when those driving the narrative also run businesses that depend on their widespread adoption and revenue. 

The best solutions for the problems AI purports to solve don’t come from ideologies of those few who hold the “power” – they happen when their core info reflects the full range of human diversity, and succeed only if we continue to question how well they are working for us.

There have been a few instances this year demonstrating the effectiveness of questioning inevitability. These include the NYC and LA moratoriums on use of generative AI in their public schools, the Meta child safety settlement, and California’s growing patchwork of legislation that is just beginning to take shape.

With the NYC and LA school districts, these moratoriums happened because individuals questioned the inevitability. Back in April, more than 100 parents, students, and educators showed up at a meeting, which was actually not about AI use in schools, to testify about NYC’s proposed policy for student-facing AI. 

That meeting fueled a course correction that resulted in the one year moratorium for K-8. It also changed the mostly green-light decision process of NYC’s Panel for Educational Policy into one that questions inevitability through a greater participatory process. Similarly, LA’s moratorium for all students stemmed from parents who raised their voices as one.

Beyond schools, recent weeks have also seen a $17 billion settlement from Meta over Meta designing their products to exploit vulnerabilities in minors, leading to a range of harms. Crucially, prior to this settlement Meta and Google were held liable for the first time for harms because one woman bravely took on Meta and their actions. This finding came one day after Meta was fined a $375 million penalty in a child safety case brought by the state of New Mexico, also fueled by one whistleblower’s testimony.

These important outcomes are not final solutions. In both New York City and Los Angeles, the moratoriums are for this school year only. And Meta is only being forced to pay a fraction of damages to both Kaley and the state of New Mexico. Beyond compensation, the ultimate goal is to get these products to stop creating more harm than good – but Meta gets to decide what constitutes harm in this settlement, as it is tied to their community standards over which they have full control.

But since 47 states, D.C and 3 US territories signed on to this settlement, Meta is “fully, finally, and forever released and discharged … from any and all Claims, whether known or unknown, whether accrued or unaccrued, that were asserted” in this lawsuit in all of these places. 

It is worth noting that California is taking the lead here. Over the last few years, people like Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan has questioned the inevitability narrative, and has slowly but surely laid the foundation for consumer — and especially child — protection in the age of AI. I had the privilege of working with her from my role with Common Sense Media, and while I didn’t always see the big picture of how she was working to piece things together, this year’s slate of bills brought this into focus.

This year’s Assembly Bill 1709, which stops platforms above and beyond Meta from using addictive AI features for youth 16 and under, was built on the protections established by last year’s Assembly Bill 976, and whose accountability power is strengthened by this year’s Assembly Bill 1856. 

And, AB 1709 does something really interesting: It establishes an advisory body within the Department of Justice, which I believe will tie to a range of Bauer-Kahan’s efforts. 

Each moment shows us that we don’t have to accept the idea of an inevitable AI-led future. Where one person stood up, others followed, and change happened. There are meaningful steps that open closed doors. 

Don’t stop pushing; our future depends on it.  

Tracy Pizzo is the Founder and CEO of the company Restorative AI. She is based in the Bay Area.