Scientists Need a Positive Vision for AI

It’s time to lead reform, block harm, and advance the public good

3 min read

Bruce Schneier is a fellow at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.

Nathan E. Sanders is a data scientist and an affiliate of the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University.

Colorful illustration of an AI search bar with a multitude of flowers blooming out of it.
Andriy Onufriyenko/Getty Images

For many in the research community, it’s gotten harder to be optimistic about the impacts of artificial intelligence.

As authoritarianism is rising around the world, AI-generated “slop” is overwhelming legitimate media, while AI-generated deepfakes are spreading misinformation and parroting extremist messages. AI is making warfare more precise and deadly amid intransigent conflicts. AI companies are exploiting people in the global South who work as data labelers, and profiting from content creators worldwide by using their work without license or compensation. The industry is also affecting an already-roiling climate with its enormous energy demands.

Meanwhile, particularly in the United States, public investment in science seems to be redirected and concentrated on AI at the expense of other disciplines. And Big Tech companies are consolidating their control over the AI ecosystem. In these ways and others, AI seems to be making everything worse.

This is not the whole story. We should not resign ourselves to AI being harmful to humanity. None of us should accept this as inevitable, especially those in a position to influence science, government, and society. Scientists and engineers can push AI toward a beneficial path. Here’s how.

The Academy’s View of AI

A Pew study in April found that 56 percent of AI experts (authors and presenters of AI-related conference papers) predict that AI will have positive effects on society. But that optimism doesn’t extend to the scientific community at large. A 2023 survey of 232 scientists by the Center for Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy Studies at Arizona State University found more concern than excitement about the use of generative AI in daily life—by nearly a three to one ratio.

We have encountered this sentiment repeatedly. Our careers of diverse applied work have brought us in contact with many research communities: privacy, cybersecurity, physical sciences, drug discovery, public health, public-interest technology, and democratic innovation. In all of these fields, we’ve found strong negative sentiment about the impacts of AI. The feeling is so palpable that we’ve often been asked to represent the voice of the AI optimist, even though we spend most of our time writing about the need to reform the structures of AI development.

We understand why these audiences see AI as a destructive force, but this negativity engenders a different concern: that those with the potential to guide the development of AI and steer its influence on society will view it as a lost cause and sit out that process.

Elements of a Positive Vision for AI

Many have argued that turning the tide of climate action requires clearly articulating a path toward positive outcomes. In the same way, while scientists and technologists should anticipate, warn against, and help mitigate the potential harms of AI, they should also highlight the ways the technology can be harnessed for good, galvanizing public action toward those ends.

There are myriad ways to leverage and reshape AI to improve people’s lives, distribute rather than concentrate power, and even strengthen democratic processes. Many examples have arisen from the scientific community and deserve to be celebrated.

Some examples: AI is eliminating communication barriers across languages, including underresourced contexts like marginalized sign languages and indigenous African languages. It is helping policymakers incorporate the viewpoints of many constituents through AI-assisted deliberations and legislative engagement. Large language models can scale individual dialogues to address climate-change skepticism, spreading accurate information at a critical moment. National labs are building AI foundation models to accelerate scientific research. And throughout the fields of medicine and biology, machine learning is solving scientific problems like the prediction of protein structure in aid of drug discovery, which was recognized with a Nobel Prize in 2024.

While each of these applications is nascent and surely imperfect, they all demonstrate that AI can be wielded to advance the public interest. Scientists should embrace, champion, and expand on such efforts.

A Call to Action for Scientists

In our new book, Rewiring Democracy: How AI Will Transform Our Politics, Government, and Citizenship, we describe four key actions for policymakers committed to steering AI toward the public good.

These apply to scientists as well. Researchers should work to reform the AI industry to be more ethical, equitable, and trustworthy. We must collectively develop ethical norms for research that advance and applies AI, and should use and draw attention to AI developers who adhere to those norms.

Second, we should resist harmful uses of AI by documenting the negative applications of AI and casting a light on inappropriate uses.

Third, we should responsibly use AI to make society and people’s lives better, exploiting its capabilities to help the communities they serve.

And finally, we must advocate for the renovation of institutions to prepare them for the impacts of AI; universities, professional societies, and democratic organizations are all vulnerable to disruption.

Scientists have a special privilege and responsibility: We are close to the technology itself and therefore well positioned to influence its trajectory. We must work to create an AI-infused world that we want to live in. Technology, as the historian Melvin Kranzberg observed, “is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.” Whether the AI we build is detrimental or beneficial to society depends on the choices we make today. But we cannot create a positive future without a vision of what it looks like.

The Conversation (7)
Benjamin Kuipers
Benjamin Kuipers07 Nov, 2025
LF

Um . . . I was eager to read this article to get a few clues about what the positive vision would look like, but aside from a few one-sentence examples in one paragraph, there was nothing. I was eager to be persuaded to buy your book to get more examples and more details, but this short blurb (not even an article) has left me disappointed and skeptical. The elephant in the room is economic inequality, and I saw no reference to that. Can you give me (and people like me) something more to satisfy a real hunger? Ben Kuipers

Bob Conder
Bob Conder07 Nov, 2025
INDV

I think this article misses a very important negative impact, Work Force Displacement. it may be something the legislation has to cover. But NOT to even recognize its impact will not help illuminate this very important issue nor spur our congress people to address it. In the absence of which will leave the billionaire class free to spend millions on AI infrastructure and $0 on the human impact it creates.

Mike Mittel
Mike Mittel06 Nov, 2025
M

Like many transformative technologies, how humans implement and use it is the driving question. The trajectory of AI applications is a human sociological issue, not a fundamental technology issue.

1 Reply