The whole world is bustling about the possibilities and pitfalls of artificial intelligence, including those working in forestry.
AI can revolutionize forestry and can save more lives and ecosystems through faster, more accurate data analysis. However, if forestry experts are not careful, AI can also fail important land management and policy decisions.
That's why Alark Saxena, Luke Ritter and Derek Uhey, members of the NAU Forestry Department, took it to himself to understand Forester's relationship with AI. They conducted 20 in-depth interviews with Southwest forestry experts and recently published their findings on forest policy and economics.
“I've noticed a lot of discussion about the potential of AI in forestry, but there's very little research into how ground experts actually feel about it,” he said, as an associate professor in the human dimension of forestry. “This study was the first study on topics motivated by the need to understand the human side of this technological change.”
In an interview with Forester, who works across academia, government and private industries, the researchers found that no one in the forest wanted to replace human expertise with AI or make important decisions without monitoring from real people.
“They are particularly concerned about the 'black box' issues that don't understand the AI decision-making process and cause serious accountability issues,” Saxena said. “The important concerns they shared were the risk of training AI using poor or biased data from some agencies and relying on flawed outputs for critical land management or policy analysis” – such as a proxy for where stipulated burns and clear cuts.
However, the forestry experts they interviewed agreed that AI could be a useful tool in supporting several aspects of their work. As the current labor shortage caused them to overwork and burn out, workers agreed to welcome AI support for monotonous tasks such as summarizing information, planning lessons, and filling out daily documents.
“They also see great potential in using AI for complex data analysis, such as light detection and range, as long as they act as assistants that enhance the judgment of experienced professionals rather than exchange them,” Saxena said.
Ritter said he hopes Glove and others across the United States interview forestry experts to capture a broader perspective on AI. A full understanding of expert fears and recommendations about using AI could help leaders create policies that guide future forestry jobs.
“It's difficult to implement AI ethically when we as a Forester have a gap in our knowledge of how and why it's being used,” Ritter said. “This study highlighted several interesting topics, but we need to continue to discuss AI in the classroom and in the workplace. We hope that this paper will provide a foundation for policy change and further research as AI continues to grow.”
/Public release. This material of the Organization of Origin/Author is a point-in-time nature and may be edited for clarity, style and length. Mirage.news does not take any institutional position or aspect, and all views, positions and conclusions expressed here are the views of the authors alone.
