On the recent AI and Society Forum at MIT, experts from across the Institute discussed the potential advantages and dangers of technological innovation on labor, the character of labor, civil discourse, election administration, and other topics.
The event featured individual research presentations and panel discussions, in addition to a musical performance exploring using generative artificial intelligence in the humanities.
The forum was co-organized by the School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences (SHASS) and the Social and Ethical Responsibilities of Computing (SERC). It was presented in collaboration with two of MIT’s strategic initiatives: the MIT Generative AI Impact Consortium (MGAIC) and the MIT Human Insight Collaborative (MITHIC).
Agustín Rayo, the Kenan Sahin Dean of SHASS, and Dan Huttenlocher, dean of the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing, provided opening remarks.
Rayo said bringing scholars from across MIT together was intentional because understanding AI’s impact requires expertise from disciplines throughout the Institute.
“Taking note of the societal consequences of AI shouldn’t be a departure from MIT’s mission; it’s a way of ensuring that our technical leadership has maximum impact,” Rayo said.
Huttenlocher added that computing and AI’s rapid growth makes it critical to support interdisciplinary conversations and research.
“Understanding where AI excels and where it falls short is important not only to unlocking its advantages, but additionally to avoiding critical errors, overreliance, and unintended consequences,” Huttenlocher said.
Jobs and AI
Held within the Tull Concert Hall in MIT’s Linde Music Constructing, the May 12 forum opened with a keynote presentation from economist David Autor, the Daniel (1972) and Gail Rubinfeld Professor within the MIT Department of Economics. Autor challenged the common narrative that AI will simply eliminate jobs by proposing as an alternative that technology’s impact relies on the way it affects the scarcity and value of human expertise.
“Once I take into consideration how technology interacts with the worth of labor, I give it some thought when it comes to the way it changes the scarcity of experience, whether it makes it more precious or whether it makes it more of a commodity,” he said.
Autor said that what matters is whether or not automation removes routine supporting tasks or removes expert tasks. He argued that AI will likely create recent specialized work, requiring proactive policies around employee training, wage insurance, and broader capital ownership.
A panel discussion followed, moderated by Rob Loughlin, a partner at McKinsey & Company, featuring experts from MIT discussing how work is changing and what it means for society.
Daniela Rus, the MIT Panasonic Professor of Computer Science and director of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), described excitement around ways AI could enhance the workplace.
“I’d wish to imagine the robot as your friend and assistant, as someone who watches you and figures out the way to aid you as someone you possibly can task at a high level,” she said.
Still, Rus said, human judgment stays critical in decision-making.
“We could really take into consideration co-work with the AI tools, however the role of the human because the decider, because the person with common sense, because the person deciding the following step, whatever that’s, stays super essential,” she said.
David Mindell, professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the Dibner Professor of the History of Engineering and Manufacturing within the Program in Science, Technology, and Society, says the character of labor has continually modified over time, but “what matters is the brand new work.”
“We must be supporting individuals, the economy, professions, to continually be creating the brand new work,” he said. “It’s absolutely imperative that we give the tools to the young people and allow them to do what they find creative and show us what the brand new work goes to be.”
Panelists also talked concerning the need to keep up safety standards, while also exploring ways to search out efficiencies. Mindell used an example of cargo flights that require six pilots because of the length of the flight.
“We don’t know the way to take that six number all the way down to five yet, much less two, one, or zero. There’s loads of money behind solving that problem, but there’s also a really wealthy system that has evolved to make those systems protected,” he said.
Sendhil Mullainathan, the Peter de Florez Professor with dual appointments within the MIT departments of Economics and Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS), described a vision of AI’s utility and growth that gives productivity improvements, but additionally cautioned, “I believe it’s extremely much value differentiating productivity gains from things that really drive long-term growth.”
Either way, Mullainathan said, it’s clear we’re entering a time of high variance with regard to AI’s impact on the workforce.
“For those who said, ‘exactly how will organizations restructure?’ I don’t know. But is there going to be loads of restructuring? It’s hard to consider there isn’t going to be loads of restructuring. And in some sense, if we all know that what we’re entering is a period of high variance, that itself is incredibly informative,” he said.
Democracy and AI
The day’s second session focused on AI technology and its impact on democracy.
Chara Podimata, the Class of 1942 Profession Development Assistant Professor and assistant professor of operations research and statistics within the MIT Sloan School of Management, presented her research on auditing large language models for bias in election information.
“Algorithms resolve loads of things about our lives at once,” she said. “With regard to chatbots and election information, if I take two people they usually interact with the identical chatbot … how will the chatbot respond? How will it personalize the knowledge it gives to those people?”
A longitudinal study of 12 major models throughout the 2024 U.S. presidential election season found responses varied dramatically based on stated demographics and political leanings. Her research team is now working on a brand new audit of the 2026 U.S. midterm elections, using a redesigned survey with input from political science experts.
During a panel discussion moderated by Songyee Yoon, founder and managing partner at Principal Enterprise Partners and member of the MIT Corporation, experts raised concern concerning the potential for AI to erode democratic norms and processes, but additionally explored potential positive outcomes.
Bailey Flanigan, the Theodore T. Miller (1922) Profession Development Professor within the Department of Political Science, who holds an MIT Schwarzman College of Computing shared position with EECS, said she’s skeptical of how some are applying AI as a tool that may get people to succeed in decisions or consensus more quickly.
“And there may be a reason to think that this is sweet since it is more efficient. It’s easier. But it surely loses loads of these procedural elements of democracy which can be the rituals of how we come together and make decisions,” she said. “And I believe it’s a mistake to ignore that after we start interested by automation.”
Charles Stewart III, the Kenan Sahin (1963) Distinguished Professor of Political Science and founding director of the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, said one challenge is that governmental structures don’t evolve at the identical rate as technology.
Stewart said his biggest concern is the potential for AI to steer to chaos during and after elections.
“If and when things go improper, they’ll go really bad, and really improper. If an election is named into query, that may result in violence,” Stewart said.
“We’ve already seen within the low-tech eras election results being manipulated. What worries me is what I’m going to look at this coming Election Day, and the Wednesday after, and if AI has helped to create irreversible disruptions to the election system,” he added.
Lily Tsai, the Ford Professor of Political Science and director and founding father of the MIT Governance Lab (MIT GOV/LAB), said in some ways, AI runs against the democratic norms and commitments needed for a healthy democracy.
“It is admittedly essential not only when it comes to design principles, however the commitments of designers to be accustomed to the values and principles that characterize what democracy is predicated on: agency, political equality, mutual respect, inclusion, and autonomy,” Tsai said.
Tsai also noted her research has shown some individuals are more comfortable interacting with machines. She described a “Socratic dialogue chatbot” her team designed that asks people to articulate the pondering behind their beliefs and positions.
“And that really, interestingly, seems to moderate their policy position in the method,” Tsai said. “So there are absolutely examples of how by which AI can have positive impacts on democracy. But it surely really is about designing with the fitting principles and evaluating them rigorously.”