Stanford's AI100 report says the public has little say on AI: schools must give pupils and parents a voice

Stanford's One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence published its 2026 AI100 report on 10 November: "AI Goes Mainstream: The Scaling Era and the Rise of Generative AI", a 127-page assessment produced every five years since 2016. It was chaired by Sheila McIlraith of the University of Toronto, with a study panel led by Michael Wooldridge of the University of Oxford. Stanford's Institute for Human-Centered AI says the report finds that scaling is running into limits as high-quality data becomes scarce, that AI's economic impact is "not yet evident in aggregate economic data", that international governance is "fragmented", and that concern is growing about AI's effect on jobs, education, mental health and democratic institutions.

The Register, reporting on the document, quotes one of its takeaways: "AI is reshaping the lives of billions of people, yet the public has had little say in how it is developed and deployed." Its final takeaway adds that the report "will be out of date by the time you read it."

That matters because the people who live with these decisions first are the ones least asked. Pupils are using AI tools their schools did not choose. Parents are told to trust products they cannot see inside. Workers are asked to adapt to systems whose benefits, by the report's own account, have not yet shown up in the economic data. Meanwhile chips and data centres are straining energy supplies, which means the costs are arriving ahead of the evidence.

Dan Fitzpatrick's reading is that a report which admits it is out of date on publication settles one question: no single policy, law or study will keep pace with this technology. What keeps pace is the capability of people inside schools and workplaces to judge what AI is doing and decide what it is for. Teachers and workers are already ahead of policy, and the bigger risk is paralysis while waiting for a final answer. The live issues are AI literacy and equity between schools, because a public with little say is a public that has not been taught how these systems work.

What leaders should do now: name one person who owns AI in the school or organisation and review the approach every term rather than once a year. Ask pupils, staff and parents what AI they actually use and what worries them, then publish what changed as a result. Teach AI literacy directly, including where models get their data and why they are wrong in predictable ways. Employers should ask their own teams where AI is already in use before buying more of it.

Dan Fitzpatrick works with schools, educators and leaders on adopting AI with judgement, on AI literacy and on keeping people in charge of the thinking, and he writes and speaks regularly on the questions this report raises for learning, work and trust.

Dan Fitzpatrick is available for interview and comment on this story. He is available today for live or pre-recorded radio, TV, podcast and print interviews, with a broadcast-quality remote setup for live or pre-recorded down-the-line interviews. Contact: dan@theaieducator.io