Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools are rapidly changing the way people and organizations work. A recent River Network poll of 41 organizations found that, despite water-related concerns about AI use and data center development, the network’s response to the technology ranges from complete rejection to enthusiastic acceptance.
66% of respondents reported no internal AI policy at their organizations.
This range of responses is present not just across organizations, but across staff at the same organizations. The purpose of an internal AI policy is to recognize that, while these tools are widely available and free to use, there are significant privacy-related, ethical, and environmental concerns in adopting AI on behalf of a water organization. Broadly, an internal AI policy gets your staff on the same page in terms of ethical concerns. A policy might also:
- List approved and prohibited uses,
- Educate staff on opportunities and impacts, and
- Provide appropriate use guidelines depending on the type of AI.
Understanding How Water Advocates are Using AI
To build an internal AI use policy at your organization, it is first necessary to understand how your colleagues are using these tools. Network members had a lot to say about the pros and cons of AI adoption at water organizations.
Adopters
Some water advocates believe that generative AI (GenAI) can be a boon to an organization’s mission, despite land-use, water, and environmental justice concerns. The benefits they cited are primarily related to increased capacity, efficiency, and productivity with tools like Claude, Gemini, and ChatGPT.
These tools have helped members draft grant applications, newsletters, and social media; quickly translate content from one format to another (i.e., Word document to a presentation); create summaries of long documents; transcribe audio and video content; and conduct research. At least a few of these adopters believe that AI is here to stay, and they may as well get on board.
Cautious Users & Abstainers
Advocates who are taking a more cautious approach to or have outright rejected AI often acknowledge that there is no way to completely detach from these tools. AI is deeply embedded in most search engines, design software, email platforms, and billing software, but we do have a choice in how we use GenAI, if at all. One surveyed organization is saying no to AI until the organization can develop a robust policy that addresses all associated risks.
Those who have said no to GenAI cite the protection of sensitive data as a primary reason. Inputting member, donor, or staff data into these tools is often a violation of deeper internal and legal privacy policies. Furthermore, AI use in meetings, especially note-takers and automated summaries, compromise sensitive conversations and misgender meeting participants. One respondent noted a boilerplate policy at their organization that AI note-takers are never allowed in meeting rooms. Another organization provided an alternative approach:
