Hundreds of billions of dollars are flowing into AI investment, yet our guest, Hala Hanna, Executive Director of MIT Solve, points out that less than 1% of AI venture funding is going to social impact. If AI is so powerful, why is so little of that power being directed toward the people and the problems that need it the most? Can AI really be used for the public good, or is the promise of AI for good just Silicon Valley lip service? We're talking AI, social impact, and the economics of doing good this week on Agents of Tech. According to Hala, “technology can and should serve humanity's most pressing needs, not just its most profitable markets. We think technology can close gaps in health, in wealth, in learning, and of course respond to climate change.” Solve was created a decade ago by the President of MIT, with the idea that “the challenges of our time require us to stretch a hand to all problem solvers around the world.” But because, according to Hala, “tech doesn't change the world, people do,” Solve finds incredible early-stage ventures that are using technology to close those equity gaps and helps them scale. Their global network of over 460 solutions reaches 430 million lives, with almost $90 million in direct funding and over $1.4 billion raised. Within their portfolio, AI-enabled ventures have been shown to reach 5 times more people than non-AI ventures. Hala tells us about one of their Solvers, a startup called Speetar that used AI to connect anyone with a smartphone to a doctor at a time where there was no digital healthcare infrastructure, and has since become the backbone of most of Libya's healthcare system. Hala and our hosts Autria Godfrey, Stephen Horn, and Laila Rizvi discuss why such a small percentage of the trillions of dollars being spent to build out AI goes to social causes. They also ask Hala what can be done to change that imbalance given the profit goals of the large hyperscalers and their responsibilities to their shareholders, as well as how to include the parts of the world that are being left out, like developing countries in the Global South. Among other things, Hala talks about how the “broligarchy” is employing a calculus that is completely disassociated from the real life of actual people, and that, “It’s also the regulatory wild west. Today, a deli sandwich is more regulated than AI.” Rather than wait for their conscience to kick in, Hala says, we need to structure incentives that get them to change, or to build alternative models. “We're back to prioritizing now cheap energy over clean energy, basically burning barrels of oil over micro doses of dopamine.” After our break, we cover how AI is being used with increasing frequency to not only assess grant applications, but also to write them. Hala explains how Solve is using AI, and why in their process, humans have the final say. We also explore how the “agentic revolution” is happening at a much faster rate than the industrial revolution, and how society can participate in imagining – and bringing about – a better future for everyone. As always, we end our interview with our Rapid Fire segment, where our hosts ask our guests a series of three questions. Autria asks Hala where people will draw the line when it comes to allowing AI in their personal lives; Laila asks her for something that's universally accepted that she strongly disagrees with; and Stephen asks her what she’s optimistic about. What about you? Do you think that AI should be pushed toward prioritizing more social good? Or are the commercial incentives simply too strong to sway current priorities? Can big tech help solve global problems? Or should we stop waiting for companies to do what only governments, funders and public institutions can mandate? Tell us in the comments below, and please be sure to like and subscribe.
