AI Everywhere
Opting out has become impossible
Twenty years ago, you could choose whether to use social media. Ten years ago, you could choose whether to use the cloud. Today, you can still choose not to open ChatGPT.
But that window is closing.
I’m dyslexic. I’ve used the online software Grammarly since nearly the beginning of the company, which was founded in 2009. What started as a spelling and grammar checker has evolved into an AI-powered writing assistant. The software I originally adopted as an accessibility tool is now deeply integrated with artificial intelligence.
And Grammarly is hardly unique.
Your phone uses AI to improve photos before you ever see them. Email services use AI to filter spam and suggest replies. Navigation apps use AI to estimate traffic. Streaming services use AI to recommend what you watch or listen to next. Banks use AI to detect fraud. Search engines increasingly use AI to generate answers instead of links.
The reality is that AI is already woven into everyday life. Most of the time, people don’t even know when they are interacting with it.
That’s why “just don’t use AI” is becoming less realistic every passing day.
Soon, many people won’t even know which companies are using AI, where it is being used, what data it is collecting, or what decisions it is helping make.
And that leads to a less convenient truth:
The burden cannot be on individual to figure it all out.
Just like we can’t possibly expect every family to inspect their own food. There is no way every worker can independently verify all workplace safety standards. We don’t expect every patient to know everything about every medicine they take.
We create rules collectively because some risks are simply too large and too complicated for people to manage on their own.
AI belongs in that category.
The debate isn’t whether AI exists.
The real debate is who it serves.
AI can help people, sure.
It can help someone with dyslexia communicate. It can reduce repetitive paperwork. It can help researchers analyze enormous amounts of information. It can assist doctors, teachers, engineers, and public servants.
BUT it can also be used to monitor workers more closely, eliminate jobs more quickly, deny housing applications, manipulate prices, spread misinformation, and concentrate economic power in fewer and fewer hands.
The same technology can empower people or exploit them. This is not to mention the huge impacts that data centers, which AI needs, have on our communities.
The bottom line: The difference is not the technology itself. The difference is the rules.
The fight over AI is really a fight over what kind of economy we want.
One vision says that if a corporation can automate a job, monitor a worker, collect more data, or increase profits through AI, it should be allowed to do so with minimal interference.
The other vision says technology must serve human beings.
If AI increases profits, workers should share in those gains.
If AI systems are used in hiring, housing, lending, education, or healthcare, the public should know how they work and have protections against discrimination.
If AI is used to make decisions that affect people’s lives, there should always be human accountability.
And if AI is generating enormous wealth for a handful of companies, the public should have a say in how that wealth is governed and distributed.
What’s next
In the coming months, I’ll be doing more writing and planning on the role of state government in regulating AI. Some great work has already been done in this space. I’ll be looking to add my two cents to the mix and help to find solutions that make our economy work for all. Placing regulations on AI is a critical step in making this happen.
And if you were wondering, yes, AI helped edit this post.