00:00:00
I'm Carara.
00:00:00
I'm Scott. And this is a pivot quick
00:00:03
take.
00:00:06
I'm Senator Mark Kelly. Hi, Cara and
00:00:08
Scott. This is my quick take on AI. I
00:00:11
use AI a lot. You know, Chat GPT, I
00:00:14
often go there instead of Google. I've
00:00:16
been incredibly impressed with the
00:00:18
capabilities. I mean, right from the
00:00:19
beginning. The last thing I asked Chat
00:00:21
GPT was yesterday. I only had 30 minutes
00:00:24
to go to the gym and I asked it to do
00:00:26
something that had the bike, the rowing
00:00:29
machine, some squats and bench press. It
00:00:32
worked and I did it. The problem is we
00:00:35
face a future where there could be
00:00:38
millions of Americans without a job
00:00:42
because AI is moving very rapidly and
00:00:48
people already lose their jobs. Uh now
00:00:52
the the other side of this is every time
00:00:54
we found uh ways to make uh worker
00:00:58
productivity better throughout our
00:01:00
history in time we've created a bigger
00:01:03
economy and more jobs. uh but this is
00:01:06
moving so fast that if we don't don't
00:01:08
have a good plan
00:01:10
uh and put that plan in place I think in
00:01:14
years to come we will find ourselves
00:01:16
regretful that we didn't do things
00:01:20
upfront to support you know workers who
00:01:23
clearly can be displaced my solution is
00:01:27
a plan called AI for America which is a
00:01:31
plan to eventually come up with
00:01:32
legislation to form public private
00:01:35
partnership to have AI companies and the
00:01:39
companies that benefit from this
00:01:40
technology, the companies that use AI
00:01:43
partner with the federal government to
00:01:45
provide the resources into what we call
00:01:48
an AI horizon fund to pay for job
00:01:54
training and upskilling and retraining
00:01:57
people for other careers, but also um
00:02:01
supports the changes we need in our
00:02:04
infrastructure.
00:02:05
If we don't provide the needed power and
00:02:09
water resources for data centers, uh
00:02:13
communities will reject them. We've
00:02:15
already seen this. Uh where I live in
00:02:17
Tucson, Arizona, we've seen a AI data
00:02:19
center uh from Amazon that tried to uh
00:02:23
you know start um construction inside
00:02:27
the Tucson city limits. Then uh when the
00:02:31
community realized how much power and
00:02:32
water this was going to take, eventually
00:02:34
the city council unanimously voted
00:02:36
against it. Now, if we had the resources
00:02:39
to improve infrastructure ahead of time
00:02:42
and and come up with new technologies to
00:02:44
cool data centers beyond what's
00:02:46
available right now that use a lot of
00:02:48
waters, often through a flash
00:02:49
evaporative cooling, we could find
00:02:51
ourselves in a position where
00:02:53
communities like where I live in Arizona
00:02:56
would embrace these data centers because
00:02:58
of the construction jobs and afterwards
00:03:00
that there are also some good paying
00:03:02
jobs that come with having this uh in a
00:03:05
community. We've already reached out to
00:03:08
tech companies to get their input and we
00:03:11
got some good comments. We are asking
00:03:13
them to participate and work with the
00:03:16
federal government in a private public
00:03:19
partnership and contribute
00:03:22
some of the funds to
00:03:25
uh train workers and to build the
00:03:28
infrastructure necessary to support this
00:03:31
technology. We can't put this all on the
00:03:34
backs of taxpayers, especially in this
00:03:37
environment, you know, right now. It has
00:03:38
to be a partnership. And I want this to
00:03:41
be a collaborative approach, not only
00:03:44
with tech companies, but universities
00:03:46
and AI experts and unions and utilities
00:03:51
to collaborate on this as we move
00:03:53
forward and take this plan through the
00:03:58
legislative process and come up with
00:04:01
something that I think tech companies
00:04:02
could support because again, it's in
00:04:05
their best interest to not develop
00:04:08
technology that results in millions of
00:04:12
people losing their jobs because if it
00:04:15
becomes that disruptive to the workforce
00:04:17
and to our economy, you know, I think
00:04:19
tech companies will find themselves, you
00:04:22
know, not as welcome as they otherwise
00:04:25
could be. We want this technology to be
00:04:27
safe. We don't want it to have uh
00:04:31
negative social impacts especially on
00:04:36
children. So there are ways you can
00:04:39
approach that. You can have a red team
00:04:41
try to figure out, you know, what is the
00:04:44
downside of of this technology and how
00:04:47
do we put in safeguards to protect kids.
00:04:50
We did not do that with social media.
00:04:52
We're starting to do it now, but we have
00:04:54
gone nearly two decades without the
00:04:57
necessary safeguards in place for social
00:05:00
media. I don't think we want to find
00:05:02
ourselves in a similar situation here.
00:05:04
And if we're thoughtful about it and we
00:05:07
work together to come up with some, you
00:05:09
know, solutions on the front end, we can
00:05:12
mitigate some of the worst consequences
00:05:16
of this technology. Now, again, I think
00:05:19
this is a huge win for our country and I
00:05:24
want these companies to be able to
00:05:26
innovate without, you know, too much
00:05:29
interference.
00:05:30
But it's got to be a partnership. next
00:05:32
steps. We're going to continue to meet
00:05:34
with industry,
00:05:37
with trade associ associations, with
00:05:40
unions, with universities, with
00:05:42
utilities, working together with
00:05:44
Democrats and Republicans in the House
00:05:46
and the Senate, uh, to get a bigger
00:05:48
effort and then eventually turning it
00:05:50
into legislation and turning it into
00:05:53
programs within the Department of
00:05:55
Commerce or the Department of Education,
00:05:59
Department of Labor. I mean, there's
00:06:01
places naturally that we could, you
00:06:03
know, put certain programs. I want to
00:06:05
make sure that we have a plan today that
00:06:08
is thinking about what is it going to be
00:06:10
like in our country 10 and 20 and 30
00:06:13
years from now because if we're
00:06:15
thoughtful about it upfront and we we
00:06:18
have a good plan, I think we're going to
00:06:20
get a better outcome. And that's my
00:06:22
quick take.