       The team of authors and contributors that composed the 100-year study on artificial is understandably formed mostly of AI experts and computer science researchers. This fact, however, introduces a clear bias that permeates through the tone of the report. The authors understate the negative effects that AI is currently having on people both at the individual and societal level, and although they mention some of these effects, they often breeze over them. The authors state, Conceivably the stage is set for the emergence of media conglomerates acting as Big Brothers who are able to control the ideas and online experiences to which specific individuals are exposed. I challenge that some companies are already acting in such a manner and that the levels of manipulation, made possible by AI, have already reached levels that require closer attention.
       The 100-year study is disturbingly casual about a topic that seems to be of much greater importance than they allude to. The sentence prior to the line that was quoted benignly mentions media powerhouses ability to customize content delivery down to the individual and has a footnote leading to Digital Market Manipulation, an article by Ryan Calo. The article talks about how Market Manipulation, a term coined in 1999, had been fairly overt and only semi-effective in increasing sales. The article continues, however, to discuss how since the advent of personal smart devices, social media, and AI technologies, these methods have evolved to become increasingly subtle, personal, and effective. These methods include, for example, sending personalized advertisements when a consumers will power is at its lowest.  The invasive nature of these marketing strategies and the implications they have on society are greatly understated by the 100-year study, and while they briefly mention potential regulations, their suggestions are vague and unconvincing.
       The power and public influence with which media conglomerates have acquired via psychological research and AI technologies should not be underestimated. In a somewhat thorough examination such as the 100-year study on AI, I believe they should have spent more time discussing exactly how AI technologies are being used by media conglomerates, what the negative effects could be, and how we can avoid them become Big Brothers. Many of the areas that the study discussed as being potential impacted by AI are currently only slightly influenced by AI, whereas companies such as Facebook and Google are some of the biggest users of these technologies. The fact that they received relatively little attention in the scope of their business model is further evidence that article hoped to avoid this topic.
       The writers of the study understandably make it a point to denounce fearmongering and debunk any dangerous misconceptions that the public might have. Unfounded fear of AI could be a large obstacle for further related research and therefore slow the benefits that AI could bring to society. However, understanding and addressing the effects of AI on society, both positive and negative, will be the healthiest way to approach increasingly sophisticated AI. There needs to be a balance between fearing change and making sure that the public isnt manipulated to the benefit of corporations. 
