Pearl River      Artificial intelligence or AI, as it’s known by one and all from the cognoscenti down to the biscuit cookers, continues to have a moment.  Silicon Valley and the tech-lords are spending billions in a race to develop new and different learning models and applications.  The underpinning of a lot of stock market wildness is being driven by company valuations soaring based on the investors’ bets on the AI race.  There’s no question this is a big thing, but for those of us in the cheap seats, it’s worth asking how many of us are using it, and how much of a difference it might be making in everyday life.

First, I have to say that I’m not hearing as many ooh-ahh comments from regular people about using ChatGPT, as I once did.  I don’t have the feeling in a man-on-the-street way that  using AI in daily life has seeped down deeply, for example in the way that social media has now become ubiquitous.  Admittedly, it’s still early days, so I’m not saying that it won’t get there, I’m just saying it’s not there yet.

On the other hand, The Economist reported recently on a poll that surprised me, and, if true, might be very important.  A recent survey claims that AI, contrary to most other tech applications that have increased the digital divide, is being adopted more readily by Black and Hispanic families than white families with “72% of white parents” claiming they use AI personally, compared to “80% of Black and 84% of Hispanic parents who do.”  Going further, they report that “Black teachers use AI in the classrooms more often, and non-white children are also more likely to use AI at home:  68% of white parents say that their child uses AI chatbots for school, compared with 75% of Hispanic and 81% of Black parents.”  This could be a huge breakthrough in many ways.  My skepticism is largely based on the fact that the underlying data for this report comes from the Walton Family Foundation of Walmart wealth, which potentially has way too many horses in this race to be completely trusted.  The foundation’s role in undermining public education, especially in urban areas through charter privatization, may have them fudging a bit on the data and its conclusions, as an offset to their undercutting public education dominated by Black and Hispanic families.

Nonetheless, let’s hope they are right.  Points in favor include the fact that AI is more accessible on cellphones, so it mitigates a shortage of computers and broadband access.  Also, as The Economist claims, the fact that the jobs threatened may be more professional ones may make this technology seem friendlier to all and less threatening as a tool.

It was encouraging to read that doctors are effectively using ChatGPT to save time and more effectively push insurers to cover their patients’ maladies.  A colleague recently used AI to assemble comments for EPA public hearings, and did so to effuse praise.  In both cases, the key is being able to upload the critical source material and simply ask AI to recast all of it in one document or letter more effectively.  The AI fallacy for many may still be thinking that artificial intelligence is the same as real intelligence.  A machine is not contemplative.  Using AI well still depends on a human directing the tool, just as these two cases demonstrate.  If overworked teachers in underfunded schools are also able to lock and load ChatGPT in order to make lesson plans, lecture notes, and test questions, that’s a win for them and for the students, allowing teachers real time where it’s most needed.

At the bottom line, it’s a brave new world we’re still all navigating. I’m still not sure that the tech lords are willing or able to get past their greed to look after us, rather than how to develop AI for the military, corporations, governments, and the rest. It would be nice if it made life and work easier for all of us, but we’ll have to see.