﻿Artificial Intelligence is already starting to change the world, and the 100 Year Study on Artificial Intelligence released in 2015 delivered some great insight as to what the future may hold as AI becomes more integrated into everyday life, however I am in opposition to the writer’s views of how best to do this in the fields of healthcare and education. Healthcare is undoubtedly one of the most difficult fields to integrate AI into. As the study noted the large legal battle alone will be difficult to overcome, but should some of the potential advancements in the medical field discussed in this report be possible the fight would be well worth taking up. Unfortunately the writers of this article are fighting the wrong people. The writers believe that the FDA is primarily to blame for the slow adoption of AI technology into the medical field, but in reality it is the lack of public opinion on the topic combined with a lack of enthusiasm on behalf of the medical community that is the real culprit. The FDA would not approve or rescind any regulatory measures that they believe would hinder a doctor’s ability to do their job, and if physicians “routinely dismiss” information relayed to them by AI, the FDA probably views AI technology as a hinderance rather than an enhancement to a doctor’s performance. Doctors may also be hesitant to adopt or advocate for the technology if they fear pay cuts or job loss. Some may also be skeptical if they feel that changing the cognitive tasks assigned to them may reduce the quality of their work. So instead of trying to prove to regulators what should be done, invite the medical community to better understand how AI can help them with their work and build intelligent machines tailored to the needs of these doctors. I believe that AI researchers should look to either; sway public opinion in favor of integrating health care and Artificial Intelligence, or just develop systems that doctors actually desire to use. Regulators would be eager to push through legislation should a majority of the medical community or major hospitals rally around the use of AI in healthcare. The FDA would have no choice but to reevaluate many of these archaic regulations, and much of the red tape would be removed. Instead the authors of this article are naively attempting to strongarm regulators because they believe they are the real problem. The authors take a similar position with education. Much of the 100 year study devoted to education discussed new intelligent tutoring systems, online learning and teaching robots, but only in a short paragraph on learning analytics did I see the report discuss how AI could help improve the way people learn by teaching educators how to use artificial intelligence. Instead of looking to replace human instruction with robots or online courses, researchers should design systems with the educator in mind so that they may utilize learning analytics to ensure students receive a more personalized education. While the authors of the report blamed lack of financial resources, I don’t believe educators are likely to be enthusiastic about technology that they fear will rob them of wages or positions. If educators are taught how to use these tools they could help develop these technologies by putting them into practice in the classroom, which would hopefully reduce costs for the school by providing researchers with quality data, increasing the effectiveness of these educational technologies.