A rock and an AI place
How will non-profits balance the promise and devastation of AI
When it comes to artificial intelligence (AI), there are two equally powerful and completely opposing truths I believe in:
One – AI will completely change how organizations operate, how businesses operate, how the economy operates, how society operates. Those who do not keep up with AI advancements – whether they are individuals or organizations – could fall dramatically behind.
Two – The future of AI will bring with it catastrophic consequences. The destruction of the environment, the exploitation of the poor, millions of jobs lost, increased costs for everyday consumers, and much more. This has already begun – just look at the impact of the rapid development of data centers across the U.S. – and as AI grows in potential and power, so will grow the devastation.
The point of this post is not to argue either one of those points. To understand the dilemma, you only have to see the friction between these two truths, even if you only believe one or both to a certain degree. For individuals and for-profit companies, there’s a way to have your cake and eat it too. To benefit from AI, without believing you are directly causing the issues AI will cause. Businesses, for example, do this every day – maximizing their profits and shareholder value without concern for the common good. (aka “the Tragedy of the Commons.”)
But what about those organizations that are mission-driven to make the world a better place? For NGO’s, charities, non-profits and other organizations with a mission focused on solving for climate change, or social justice, or human rights, or income inequality, or data privacy, or any other similar goal, they cannot so easily navigate this conundrum.
On one hand, they absolutely will need to adopt AI to ensure they are maximizing their impact, keeping up with others in terms of public interest, fundraising, hiring, etc. They will not be able to afford to avoid AI and survive, let alone thrive, in the coming future. On the other hand, AI itself is increasingly responsible for the various issues these organizations are fighting against.
Let’s just use one such organization – Greenpeace – as an example. Even today, using AI would help Greenpeace do far more with the same resources, reducing their costs, making outreach and fundraising more efficient and effective, drawing more attention to and support for their cause. But the data centers needed to run AI are detrimental to the environment, so say the least. According to the World Economic Forum, a 1 megawatt (MW) data centre can use up to 25.5 million litres of water annually just for cooling – equivalent to the daily water consumption of approximately 300,000 people. According to their study, AI-driven data centers “could consume 1.7 trillion gallons of water globally by 2027.” So if you’re Greenpeace, you won’t be able to support your mission fully without AI. But how can you use AI when it has such a negative impact on the planet? They – along with countless other individuals and organizations – will be stuck between a rock and an AI place.
The way through is not moving to one extreme or the other: no AI use at all, or full steam ahead with no thought to the consequences. Instead it lies with understanding the situation and finding compromises, offsets and other solutions that will allow your organization to benefit from AI while at the same time acknowledging and combating, to whatever degree possible, the negative impacts of AI on the world. It means crafting values, principals and policies at your organization to balance the benefits and detriments of AI. It means staying ahead of the technology and helping to find solutions to lesson the impact of AI on our world. Those fighting to make the world a better place for all have faced and solved for similar issues in the past. After all, even Greenpeace needs gas to fuel their cars and must fly in airplanes despite the carbon output. How you find your way through will vary depending on your organization’s mission, it’s values, its culture. But there’s no avoiding these two truths, and the sooner you find a way to reconcile them, the better for you and the world.