In recent AI and Society Forum at MITexperts from across the Institute discussed the potential benefits and risks of technological innovations on work, the nature of work, civic discourse, election administration, and other topics.
The event included individual research presentations and panel discussions as well musical performance explores the application of generative artificial intelligence in art.
The forum was co-organized by School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (SHASS) i Social and ethical responsibilities of computing (SERC). It was presented in collaboration with two strategic MIT initiatives: MIT Generative Impact AI Consortium (MGAIC) i Collaborating on Human Insight at MIT (MYTHICAL).
Agustín RayoKenan Sahin, Dean of SHASS i Then HuttenlocherDean of the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing, delivered opening remarks.
Rayo said bringing together scientists from across MIT was intentional because understanding the impact of artificial intelligence requires expertise from a variety of disciplines across the institute.
“Paying attention to the social implications of AI does not mean deviating from MIT’s mission; it is a way to ensure that our technical leadership has maximum impact,” Rayo said.
Huttenlocher added that the rapid development of computer science and artificial intelligence makes supporting interdisciplinary conversations and research crucial.
“Understanding where AI excels and where it falls short is essential not only to unlock its benefits, but also to avoid critical errors, over-reliance and unintended consequences,” Huttenlocher said.
Work and artificial intelligence
The forum, held on May 12 in the Tull Concert Hall in MIT’s Linde Music Building, began with a keynote speech by an economist Author DavidDaniel (1972) and Gail Rubinfeld Professors in the Department of Economics at MIT. The author challenges the common narrative that AI will simply eliminate jobs, proposing instead that the impact of technology depends on how it affects the scarcity and value of human expertise.
“When I think about how technology affects the value of work, I think about it in terms of how it changes the scarcity of expertise, whether it makes it more valuable or whether it makes it more of a commodity,” he said.
The author stated that what matters is whether automation removes routine support tasks or expert tasks. He argued that artificial intelligence is likely to create novel specialized jobs, requiring proactive policies around worker training, wage insurance and broader capital ownership.
This was followed by a panel discussion moderated by Rob Loughlin, partner at McKinsey & Company, featuring experts from MIT who discussed how work is changing and what this means for society.
Daniel RusPanasonic professor of computer science at MIT and director of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), described his excitement about the ways artificial intelligence can improve the workplace.
“I would like to imagine the robot as your friend and assistant, someone who watches you and wonders how to help you, as a person to whom you can set high-level tasks,” she said.
Still, Rus said, human judgment remains key to decision-making.
“We could really think about working with artificial intelligence tools, but the human role as the decision maker, the rational thinker, the person deciding the next step, whatever it may be, remains extremely important,” she said.
David Mindellprofessor Aeronautics and Astronautics and Dibner Professor of the History of Engineering and Manufacturing in the Science, Technology and Society program, say the nature of work has constantly changed over the years, but “it’s the new work that counts.”
“We need to support individuals, the economy, the professions to constantly create new work,” he said. “It is absolutely essential that we give young people the tools and allow them to do what they find creative and show us what their new job will be.”
Panelists also discussed the need to maintain safety standards while exploring ways to find improvements. Mindell gave the example of cargo flights, which require six pilots due to the length of the flight.
“We don’t yet know how to reduce this number from six to five, much less to two, one or zero. There is a lot of money behind solving this problem, but there is also a very rich system that has evolved to ensure the security of these systems,” he said.
Sendhil MullainathanProfessor Peter de Florez, a dual faculty member in MIT’s economics, electrical engineering, and computer science (EECS) departments, described a vision of the utility and development of artificial intelligence that delivers productivity improvements, but also cautioned: “I think it’s very useful to distinguish productivity gains from the factors that actually drive long-term growth.”
Either way, Mullainathan said, it’s clear we’re entering a period of wide divergence in AI’s impact on the workforce.
“If you ask, ‘How exactly will organizations restructure?’ I don’t know. But will there be a lot of restructuring? It’s hard to believe that there won’t be many restructurings. And in some sense, if we know that we’re entering a period of high volatility, that in itself is extremely instructive,” he said.
Democracy and artificial intelligence
The second session of the day focused on artificial intelligence technology and its impact on democracy.
Chara Podimata’42 assistant professor of career development and assistant professor of operations research and statistics at the MIT Sloan School of Management, presented her research on auditing vast language models for bias in election information.
“Algorithms now decide many things about our lives,” she said. “When it comes to chatbots and election information, if I take two people and they are interacting with the same chatbot… how will the chatbot respond? How will it personalize the information it gives to these people?”
A longitudinal study of 12 major models conducted during the 2024 U.S. presidential election season found that responses varied significantly depending on the demographics and political leanings provided. Her research team is currently working on a novel 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 Associate Venture Partners and member of the MIT Corporation, experts expressed concerns about AI’s potential to erode democratic norms and processes, but also explored the potential positive impacts.
Bailey FlaniganTheodore T. Miller (1922), a career development professor in the Department of Political Science who holds a joint appointment at the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing with EECS, stated that she was skeptical of the way some people exploit artificial intelligence as a tool that can get people to make decisions or reach consensus more quickly.
“And there’s reason to think it’s nice because it’s more effective. It’s easier. But it loses a lot of those procedural elements of democracy, which are the rituals in which we meet and make decisions,” she said. “And I think it’s a mistake to forget about that when we start thinking about automation.”
Charles Stewart IIIKenan Sahin (1963) distinguished professor of political science and founding director MIT’s Election Data Lab and Science Labhe said one challenge is that government structures are not evolving at the same pace as technology.
Stewart said his biggest concern is the potential for artificial intelligence to cause chaos during and after the election.
“If and when something goes wrong, it can go really bad, really bad. If the election is contested, it could lead to violence,” Stewart said.
“We have already seen that in the era of low technology, election results are being manipulated. What worries me is what I will see on the upcoming election day and the Wednesday after, and whether artificial intelligence has helped create irreversible disruptions in the electoral system,” he added.
Lily TsaiFord Professor of Political Science and founding director MIT Management Lab (MIT GOV/LAB), in many ways artificial intelligence is contrary to the democratic norms and commitments necessary for a fit democracy.
“It’s really important not only in terms of design principles, but also the obligations of designers to know the values and principles that characterize democracy: agency, political equality, mutual respect, inclusion and autonomy,” Tsai said.
Tsai also noted that her research has shown that some people feel more comfortable interacting with machines. She described a “Socratic dialogue chatbot” her team designed that asks people to express the thinking behind their beliefs and positions.
“And that, interestingly, seems to be softening their political stance in this process,” Tsai said. “So there are absolutely examples of ways in which AI can have a positive impact on democracy. But it’s really about designing based on the right principles and rigorously evaluating them.”