Apodaca: Communication is key to navigating next-wave technology

I’m a world-class worrier, and one of the many things I worry about is how the exponential pace of technological development will affect society. In particular, I worry about how it will shape — and possibly warp — the minds of today’s youth.

To be sure, we’ve all seen the harmful effects of social media on a generation of young people who grew up with tiny computers in their hands: unhealthy attachment to devices and online portals, social isolation, reduced attention spans, anxiety, depression, overstimulation — the list goes on.

The problems have become so acute that California lawmakers are considering legislation to restrict social media use for anyone under age 16. They aren’t the first to propose such curbs, just as schools are adopting stricter cell phone policies out of desperation to minimize classroom disruption.

Now, with the advent of AI and other next-wave technologies, fears are mounting that we are tumbling heedlessly into a world with unknown and possibly dangerous consequences, and that children will be ripe targets for exploitation.

Even so, UC Irvine Professor Mizuko “Mimi” Ito, a cultural anthropologist of technology use and the author of a series of highly influential books on the topic, has a message for worriers like me:

Calm down.

She didn’t say that exactly, but during a recent interview her counsel was as reassuring as possible considering that predictions about the risks versus the potential benefits presented by AI are all over the place, and it’s impossible to grasp from our current vantage point just how a generation raised with chatbots will be shaped by this altered reality.

“We have a lot of scary scenarios in our minds,” Ito noted.

And, to be clear, she empathizes with that impulse: “We’re all struggling with this.”

But, she said, “What we do know from research is that as long as the kids are in the context of stable families and situations, they’ll be fine.”

Ito, who has a degree from Harvard and two Ph.D.s from Stanford, has spent decades studying young people’s use of digital technology and how digital media is changing their relationships, communities and identities.

In many ways, today’s teeth-gnashing over our venture into uncharted technological territory could mirror the generational conflicts of times past, Ito observed.

The pattern goes something like this: A new technology is introduced, and society’s youth, who are generally more open to new ideas and experimentation, are among the early adopters.

Older folks are slower to catch on and sometimes freak out about what feels unfamiliar, a little unnatural and possibly even somewhat menacing. Technology use becomes an intergenerational wedge issue.

Eventually the new thing becomes an established, quotidian part of everyday life. By then we’re on to the next phase in our technological evolution.

Texting, social media, online dating — these are all examples of technology-enabled practices that were once regarded with some trepidation. And while there have definitely been well-documented downsides to such developments, nevertheless over time they all became normalized.

Undoubtedly, there have been many positive, as well as negative, aspects to such technological advancements of the past few decades, and that will likely be true of AI as well. The added challenge with AI is that the pace of change has become so rapid it’s difficult to ascertain what an appropriate, balanced adoption phase should look like. There’s so much that we just don’t know yet — but, ready or not, it’s already here.

Ito acknowledged that it’s hard for researchers to keep up with the breakneck speed that AI has been, and will continue to be, insinuated into our lives. There could be both risks and rewards that we can’t even envision today.

But she points out that the focus should be less on the technology itself and more on the ways we interact with it. Rather than considering technology through the lens of good versus bad, we should look at it as an amplifier of preexisting tendencies, whether positive, negative or some combination of both.

As for concerns that kids will be particularly vulnerable to confusing AI creations with real, human relationships, Ito acknowledged that there is the possibility of harm in some cases. But, once again, there are parallels with what has come before.

Consider, for example, the way that kids have long developed strong feelings about fictional characters from books, movies and television shows.

These characters, in many respects, feel real to children, yet we don’t exhibit the same level of concern about those attachments, in part because most kids mature and learn to regulate themselves.

If previous patterns hold, it will be the families with healthy communication skills and trusting relationships that will have better outcomes with emerging technologies, Ito said.

Indeed, rather than operating from a place of fear and blindly restricting access, parents should approach their children’s AI interactions with a genuine curiosity, she suggested.

Ask questions, listen and try to learn from their answers. The key will be to focus on communication and connection, rather than control, she said.

Communication and connection are always important goals. It’s looking like they’ll be essential in the age of AI.