AI & Us

I…composed a song about Cooper and Hudson, my two rescue ‘corona-kitties.’  Drafted a weeklong itinerary for an upcoming trip to Panama.  Analyzed what makes a city vibrant.  Wrote a 1,000 word essay on what makes trust-based philanthropy better than the ‘traditional’ approach.  Prepared a short bio of the founder of our Foundation, Robert Sterling Clark.  

All in a day’s work.  Actually, not even an hour’s work.  Ok, it all took only about five minutes – and most of that time was dreaming up what next to ask of Bard, Google’s artificial intelligence (AI) tool. Happily, it dawned on me to submit work-related prompts, to see how it might be helpful at the office (or while WFH).  AI is having its moment, or making its presence more fully known to many of us.  As an avowed late sampler or tryer-outer of technology, I only recently ventured into the space. I was impressed by the speed at which the queries were answered – in a matter of seconds. The ‘products’ were a bit more mixed, though – offering varying levels of ‘quality.’

The best result was the plan for the trip which looked a lot like my own itinerary.  Hours of my research and surfing, upended by AI!  Similarly, my pursuit of what constitutes a vibrant city was fulfilled – full of energy, activity, and life.  And yes, NYC made the list…along with London, Paris, Tokyo, and Barcelona.  Solid choices.

The biography, essay, and song were not bad, but fell short for different reasons.  The facts about Robert Sterling Clark were, of course, accurate, but made no mention of his philanthropy (beyond the art space) or the origins of his family’s wealth from Singer sewing machines.  And the essay on trust-based philanthropy captured the core ideas, but also reflected some popular but inaccurate ones often reinforced by the media.  And the song, though cute but without a tune, filled in the gaps by making up parts of the story.  The more factual and data-focused, the better AI does.  But when it comes to discernment or creativity, it falls short (at least for now).

I was at a conference this past week where the theme was ‘unlearning’ – rethinking how we do our work in philanthropy, challenging what’s become ingrained as ‘that’s how we’ve always done it.’  The sector continues to explore the ways that grants are made, and is taking a fresh look at evaluation, and incorporating racial equity.  But what about ideas that haven’t yet emerged or been lifted up?  Will AI be able to contribute to that conversation?

Would AI have conjured up an approach like trust-based philanthropy or the concept of ROR – return on relationship, instead of ROI?  I think not.  AI is here to stay, but there’s still a role for us humans with our brains and creativity to make it interesting.