Who Is AI Built For?
When I think about AI and the advancement of technology, my mind immediately goes to access. I believe AI is a tool. Its capabilities are vast, but it is nothing without the human mind that directs it. At the end of the day, it is a creation, and a creation carries the fingerprints of the people who build it and the people who get to use it. So the question I keep coming back to is, who has access, who gets to shape it, and who gets left behind in the name of societal advancement?
The AI critiques are valid. The lack of regulation is real, and so is the lack of ethical guardrails beyond what everyday users can see or control. AI slop is real. So is the concern about putting these tools in young people's hands before they've developed the thinking skills to use them well. The fear and the outright rejection of the tool are understandable too, and that's people’s prerogative, but opting out will not slow the shift. It is already happening and the effects will only compound. Communities that fall behind the curve don't stay in place. They fall further behind and that gap will only get harder to close. When I was growing up, they said "no child left behind” and that became a promise reduced to compliance exercises, while the literacy crisis kept growing. If we repeat that pattern with AI or tech, we won't just have a reading gap, we'll have an AI literacy gap layered on top of it, and the children already behind will be the ones who fall furthest.
We have to make sure the children and communities we've historically underserved get access to the tools, the training, and a seat at the table where this future is being built.
Access also has to reach people’s everyday lives. A personal assistant shouldn’t be a luxury reserved for people who already have support or the means to procure it. That is the conviction that sits underneath everything I explore with AI and technology. I think about the women holding a household together while trying to build something of their own. (like me) The small-business owners doing the work of five roles. The community leaders whose responsibilities keep going long after the meeting ends. These are the people I have in mind when I talk about capacity. Their ideas, callings, and responsibilities deserve the same backing that people with built-in support already get, and real help should be within their reach.
Imagine a mother with a business idea and one free hour. She has notes in her phone, a few saved links and a clear sense of what she wants to offer. However, turning all of that into a first step eats the little time she has. Having an AI assistant that organizes those notes and drafts something for her to review makes that hour count more. She stays the decision-maker, the idea is still hers, and what it becomes is still her choice to make.
There are small-business owners who end every day answering the same questions about services, scheduling, and next steps. AI Support could start right there, by organizing those answers and drafting replies for the owner to check. It wouldn’t require rebuilding the business around a complicated platform. I care about technology that meets people where their work already is and takes a manageable piece of it off their plate, without creating a second job of supervising the tool.
Price is also a substantial part of this conversation. If meaningful help depends on a monthly payment someone can’t sustain, then the design has already decided who gets to keep using it. Telling people how powerful a tool is doesn’t make it affordable. That’s why personalized assistants for small businesses, pastors, mothers and people who need more capacity matter to me. We should be building support that is practical and affordable, including the cost of learning it and keeping it useful long after the first exciting demo.
My heart is with women, mothers, Black people, and people carrying more than they have room for. That’s where my questions begin, even though the work can serve anyone. I am especially concerned about Black people and our kids being left out of the more capable technology while the conversation moves on without us. A basic introduction is a starting point, not the finish line. We need room to practice, to explore ambitious ideas, and to help shape the tools themselves.
People deserve enough information to make their own decisions about AI. Concerns about privacy and accuracy deserve clear answers, and anyone who is curious should be able to ask a basic question without feeling embarrassed. That’s a big part of what I’m doing in my businesses and for others, making sure people can ask, understand, and decide for themselves. It also shapes how I think about the assistants and tools I want to build. A useful tool makes its work understandable, so a person can judge an answer for themselves. It leaves the consequential decisions with the person using it and it makes checking or correcting an answer simple. The person stays in charge of the choice, and the tool’s job is to make that choice easier to make well.
So, who is AI built for? The answer isn’t decided by what technology can do. It’s decided by who it’s designed around, who can afford it, and who is invited to shape it. I want to build technology that takes the daily work of people’s lives seriously, and I measure it by one question, does someone have more room to do what matters after using it? A business owner finishing a routine task sooner. A mother spending more of her one hour developing her idea. A community leader getting reliable help at a price the organization can maintain. That is what we should have to show for this moment, and it should be within reach of the people who need it most.