Futures Worth Building – San Francisco 2025

Thanks so much. It's so exciting to be in this space. I've been in this space before. I've never been on this stage before. So, that's exciting.

Um, and I also am going to apologize because I am uh I planned poorly and I will need to run out of here and catch a flight. So, um I put my name and contact information on the screen. So, if you wanted to chat and if you wanted to rise to Mark's challenge and hang out later, um please do find me on the internet. I'm extremely online. Um, I also am going to be doing something that's a little bit out of my comfort zone today.

Usually I'm a big slide person. Uh, today I have one slide. You see it right now. Um, and I'm going to actually be reading a little bit of what I've put together because it's a bit of a talk. Um, and it's a bit of a poem.

In this room, there are builders. There are climate hackers. There are librarians and archavists, wisdomkeepers and philanthropists. They're institutional navigators and execution bridggers. In this room, there are dreamers.

And in this room, there's a dream. A dream for better things. Shared futures worth building. Public commons worth tending. A vision of the way that things can be, should be.

And understanding that the future belongs to the many, not just the few. And all around us, there are people who can feel it. People who know that this isn't the way that things should be. and they know that many of the systems that exist today aren't working for them. They feel lost, afraid, even angry at what they know in their bones is not right.

And they're grasping for our common dream. But they're being sold a false promise. They're being told that there is no other way, that it's too late, that there isn't enough, that they can't trust people, can't trust themselves. The false promise says, "Only I can protect you." And in following that false promise, people erect walls, burn libraries, and drown in misinformation and rising waters.

People shut doors instead of opening them, deplete resources instead of cultivating them, and in doing so, lay waste to the things that help us thrive. It doesn't have to be like this. My name is B. Cavello. I'm the director of emerging technologies at an organization called the Aspen Institute, a nonprofit based in Washington, DC.

I've been privileged throughout my career to serve in many roles in many sectors from small nonprofits and garage startups to huge multinationals, even the US federal government. I spent most of the last 10 years working in AI. And I'm a dreamer, too. One of my dreams is called public AI. Now, some of you fellow dreamers in the audience here know public AI, but for those who don't, here's a primer.

Public AI is not a model or a compute network or an AI system. It is an approach. It is a relationship with AI that emphasizes public access, accountability, and sustainable public goods. Public AI is not government AI, but it can be enabled by governments or non-governmental organizations, even for-profit companies. See, public AI is rooted in the belief that AI is too important, too powerful a tool to be wielded by only the few.

Public AI is rooted in the belief that the tools to create the future should rest in the hands of the public. It comes from a recognition that societies don't have to just consume the technologies that shape their lives. They can and should build them. Public AI is a practice. It's a way of doing things.

As I like to say, inspired by the preamble of the US Constitution, just as we can form a more perfect union, we can build a more public AI. This means expanding access, recognizing that certain capabilities are so important for participation in public life that access to them should be universal. That's why public access is a key value of public AI. Providing everyone with direct, affordable access to these tools so that everyone can realize their potential. More public AI means increasing public participation and governance.

While few technologists would actually oppose the idea of advancing the common good, few AI developers proactively seek out public guidance to steer their development processes or change course when the public disapproves of their decisions. This is why public accountability is a key value of public AI. giving the public the power to truly shape the development of technology, setting the priorities for research and product, including the option to not pursue certain capabilities if they would be harmful. Finally, and I know this is all too familiar for the folks in this room funding the comments, often the developers who do want to do good with technology are unable to secure the resources needed to create lasting public value. How many brilliant social impact projects have faded into obscurity after the hackathon ends and their repos gather dust?

Meanwhile, the terms of private capital investment too often lock well-intentioned creators into problematic incentive structures, leading to instability, distracting from the innovation on big challenges that face our world. To truly realize the opportunities of AI, we need sustainable development models that enable us to chart a different course. That's why sustainable public goods are a key value of public AI. creating robust and stable foundations that everyone can build and innovate upon. In building more public AI, we can shift people's relationship to these technologies.

Today, the public's thoughts about AI are dominated by concern, uncertainty, fear. By centering the public with access, accountability, sustainable public goods, we can shift the conversation toward capabilities, priorities, potential. Now, I'm proud to be working with a community of dreamers to make this a reality. There are people in this room guaranteeing access to critical information resources for current and future generations. There's a coalition of public computing labs that are working on innovative new models for funding and sustaining public goods.

In my own work, I'm collaborating with brilliant minds at the collective intelligence project, Simon Frasier University, Metagv, and of course my incredible colleagues at the Aspen Institute to develop new mechanisms for public accountability. And I want to talk about this because too often accountability is used synonymously with punishment. Now, deterrence is a powerful mechanism, but there's more that we can do than simply reducing harm. I believe that public accountability is also about being truly responsive to the needs and desires of the public. A more public AI ecosystem must not only avoid potential risks, but also clearly articulate priorities, opportunities, challenges that AI must be used to address in order to be a true public good.

In this room of fellow dreamers, I would like to challenge you. We must more clearly articulate what direction we want to be headed in. And then we need to be able to measure it. Without meaningful measures of progress, AI development may continue to pursue goals that are orthogonal or even antagonistic to the public interest. And while there are many claims being made about the potential good AI might enable, we lack answers to basic questions.

Are we delivering on the promises of medical and climate pro progress that we so often hear about? Are the tools being developed today helping us to solve the tough problems that we face? Are they enabling increased standards of living? Are they achieving the sustainable development goals? like our AI capabilities developed today actually going to help us with gender equity or food security or decent work.

If we want to realize the dreams of flourishing that these technologies can inspire, then we need to get concrete about prioritizing progress on the things that matter. Public accountability demands that we be transparent about how things are going so that we can live up to the aspirations of the public and make good on the potential of these powerful tools. Now, I want to be clear, public AI as an approach doesn't necessarily stop people from pursuing AI in harmful ways, and we do still need to do that. But I sometimes think of public AI playing the role of like smuggled outside media in North Korea or the book drops across the Iron Curtain. Perhaps some of the work Mark and the Wayback team are doing.

It proves that another way is possible. The good news is we do have tools at our disposal for reducing bad behavior like sensible regulations and public decision-making processes. But as has happened throughout history countless times, if those tools prove to be insufficient, the public will find other ways to shut things down if necessary. But they need to know that there are alternatives, that are futures worth building, that there are futures worth fighting for. Today, there are people all around us who are hungry for better futures.

people who know that this isn't the way that things should be and know that many of the systems that exist are not working for them. They feel lost, afraid, even angry, and they're being sold a false promise. But we know that false promise won't last. The cracks are already showing. We know that those people, our builders, our dreamers, our climate hackers, librarians, archavists, wisdomkeepers, philanthropists, institution navigators, execution bridges, the public is so many things.

We know this because we are the public, too. And through the cracks in these failing systems all around us, the light of our shared dream is shining through. Thank you. [Music]