	The main issue with the 100 Year AI Study is that its scope is far too small to truly be a comprehensive 
study of how Artificial Intelligence develops over the next one hundred years. The 2016 report explicitly states that 
the researchers chose to focus on AI's effect on life in North American cities and only in certain fields. The stated 
purpose of this study is to "provide a collected and connected set of reflections about AI and its influences as the 
field advances" (Stanford 2016 Report, 1), but to properly do this they shouldnt be choosing fields and locations as they see fit.  
	North America should in theory have a full timeline of the progression of AI, at least in the fields the 
researchers choose to include, However, being able to look at North America without getting a clear view of the rest
of the world makes it very easy to miss or hide things from the study. If a similar study, one that only looked at the 
effects on North American life, was done about the development of the computer starting back in the 1940's it would 
have found profoundly almost exclusively positive changes to society. This hypothetical study would miss all the 
suffering in some non-North American countries to produce computers on an enormous scale so that North American's 
could prosper. For example, this study would miss the many wars in Africa fought over Coltan which is needed to produce 
countless digital products. These researchers should not assume that Artificial Intelligence won't have any negatives 
that appear exclusively outside of North America. 
	On the topic of war, it was incredibly foolish to purposely leave militaristic applications of artificial intelligence 
out of the report. Militaries in the past, especially the United States military which would have otherwise been covered 
in this North American report, have been early adopters and developers of new technology. It would have made sense to 
take a snapshot of how AI is currently used in the military, even if its minimal at this time, to get a baseline for 
future reference, because if any military decides to start investing heavily in it, the field as a whole will likely 
develop significantly faster. Including the military in this report would also show uses for AI that could only exist 
for a military. It's like reporting on planes and ignoring some of the most amazing technology because its only found on 
fighter jets. In the past some technology, GPS for example, have had Militaristic origins and eventually make to the rest 
of the world. Including the military in this report would show the progression of some future technologies that may follow 
a similar development, rather than having them just pop into the report after theyve been worked on for decades. 
	Overall, this report is not truly large enough to get a good idea of how all aspects of AI progress over the next one 
hundred years. Even if the researchers plan on expanding the study in the future, they may as well just wait until they can do 
a full report. Otherwise the most important years of this report, that should serve as a comprehensive baseline for all future 
reports, will be lacking. By not having this solid baseline to compare progress to, the researchers are not fulfilling the 
intended purpose of this study. 
 