Navigating AI-Enabled Community-Inclusive Preparedness

This text is based on live transcription. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), captioning, and/or live transcription are provided to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. This text is not to be distributed or used in any way that may violate copyright law.

(Music Playing)

MARGAUX HAVILAND
We are excited for all of you to join us today. We will get started in a minute or two.

MARGAUX HAVILAND 
Thank you for joining us today for our INSPIRE: Readiness: Navigating AI‑Enabled Community‑Inclusive Preparedness. I am Margaux Haviland, INSPIRE‑Project Lead here at ASTHO. I will be moderating today's session.

This session is being recorded and will be distributed to participants in the coming weeks.

INSPIRE readiness is a public platform available to anyone available on ASTHO.org. We invite you to leverage our Library of stories and resources to enhance your agency's ability to tackle Public Health challenges with innovative approaches. A link to the platform will be provided in the Chat.

As we think of the importance of inclusive collaboration and Public Health, it is important to recognize the persistent gaps that exist in preparedness efforts. It is also widely recognized that Public Health Emergencies disproportionately affect vulnerable communities, yet traditional Health Preparedness exercises often overlook these groups in planning and decision‑making. AI‑enabled Intelligence offers a promising shift in enabling organizations to actively equip scenarios and realtime insights for more effective, coordinated responses.

The drive to innovate often stems from pressure, policy shifts and funding constraints. Unfortunately, Public Health Systems have struggled to keep pace. But the solutions don't need to be complex. Today's Webinar will show how AI‑enabled awareness can foster more response and support subject matter and faster decision‑making.

Our panelists will address AI‑driven community‑led exercise design, independent evaluation and measurable impact, and help Policy and AI Governance.

And with that, I will introduce you all to our panel of Subject Matter Experts. First, we have Tatiana Lin, Director of Business Strategy and Innovation at Kansas Health Institute.

TATIANA LIN
Good morning, and good afternoon, depending on where you are geographically. I am very excited to be here. I am with the Kansas Health Institute in Topeka, Kansas. It is a pleasure to be here.

Over my career I spent a good number of years focusing on bringing health considerations into policy and finding the ways to authentically engage in communities.

Over the last two years, I worked in the Artificial Intelligence focused‑building capacity over Local Governmental Public Health, and State Governmental Public Health, and really demystifying AI and how we now use it in daily tasks.

I have also been fortunate to be a co‑author of an AI Template and Guidance for public organizations, really helping all those interested in developing their policies of AI to make it a reality. It is a pleasure to be here.

MARGAUX HAVILAND
Thank you, Tatiana. Next, we have Rachael Piltch‑Loeb, with the CUNY School of Public Health & Health Policy.

RACHAEL PILTCH-LOEB
Hi, everyone. Good afternoon, and thank you very much for having me on this panel. My name is Rachael Piltch‑Loeb. As Margaux mentioned, I am an Assistant Professor at the CUNY Graduate School in New York City. I look at Public Health Emergency and Preparedness Response. How do we know something has gone right or wrong? How do we incorporate the community perspective in evaluating, kind of, the work that has been done, and how can we find new ways in which to do that, recognizing that kind of traditional approach to measurement and evaluation that defines success are not always possible when we are talking about the space of Public Health Preparedness and Response.

We don't always have these kind of large sample sizes in which to conduct our evaluation or our statistical tests.

And so, with that background, more recently, I had kind of the pleasure and exposure to thinking about how AI can enhance engagement, and how we should go about thinking through the metrics that we can take a look at to know if we are having success in using AI as a Public Health Preparedness and Response Community.

So, I am excited to bring that perspective to the conversation, as we all think about how we can enable ‑‑ how we can use these tools, and how we can define success which using these tools, especially to engage communities. Thanks.

MARGAUX HAVILAND
Thank you, Rachael. Additionally, we have Justin Snair, the founder of Preppr.ai.

JUSTIN SNAIR
Hi. Good morning or afternoon. Thank you for having me. I have come to this currently as the Founder of a Tech Start‑Up that is looking and building on the absolute cutting‑edge of AI and technology to address problems that I and many other people have encountered over the past few decades as a Public Health Awareness Practitioner.

So, we are looking to disrupt, positively, the status quo that is at‑work, not necessarily for everyone. One of the areas we are pushing is developing preparedness systems within particular areas of preparedness.

So, we are working with Rachael to build, and then have Rachael independently evaluate ‑‑ no involvement from me whatsoever ‑‑ whether or not what we actually built helps. We are not sure if it will actually work or help. So, we are trying to iteratively build this technology, and then hand the keys over to someone else to say if we are full of it or not.

So, coming from a background in Public Health, it means a lot to actually be effective, and not just use shiny new tools and say it will fix it all.

I have been in 20 years of practice, where I am suspicious of my own technology. So, Rachael is going to help. I am really interested in how this intersection with policy is, where it is not just the Public Health Department using AI, but them enabling others to use AI, so that get into mucky policy problems.

So, thank you for having me, Margaux.

MARGAUX HAVILAND
Thank you, Justin. We have prepared questions to guide us through today's event and hear from the panelists. The Q&A Box is available if you have specific questions and we will do our best to allow time to answer those questions at the ebbed of today's session.

To get us started, this question is for you, Rachael. What is community‑inclusive preparedness, and do we see it actually happening in the real‑world?

RACHAEL PILTCH-LOEB
It is a great question. I think if you asked everyone attending this Webinar, you may have different answers in.

The research, academic space, there is different terms for this. Community‑based participatory practice, community‑engagement, community‑driven practice. Pick your words, but I think the goal is that we really have the community's voice, perspective, and priorities in how we are preparing for events, and how we are defining our approach in responding to and recovering from those short and long‑term events.

I think that, you know, community is broad, and it is specific. So, we can be thinking about geographic communities. We can be thinking about particular vulnerable populations, and practitioners will know your community best, and recognize, kind of, different leaders or microcosms you could be going to to engage and gather that input.

But in general, the premise is we need the local, on‑the‑ground voice, helping to set priorities, distinguish the actual protocols and procedures in which we would go about designing a response to an event, and that we are not just gathering their input in a one‑off sort of function, but having a continuous conversation and mechanism so that no one is, as we say, exchanging business cards when an event happens, but there is already those relationships that have been built.

So, I think for me, we think about those words each independently.

We think of community and how we define community, then we think about engagement, and that means kind of this ongoing relationship, and then we think about preparedness, and that is trying to understand the local vulnerabilities based on what we are hearing, and who we are talking to, and the kind of current environment, and we are putting that together in a way that feels meaningful, locally.

I think that engagement component, recognizing, kind of, the stresses of, day‑to‑day operations for anybody working in a Local or State Health Department, and the time that it takes link to build meaningful relationships and engage community and communities, is critically challenging.

I think that is actually a space where, you know, the tool Justin is building, or where AI in general and technology can really serve to expedite those relationships and think of mechanisms by which engagement can happen besides face‑to‑face interactions or in community meetings.

MARGAUX HAVILAND
Thank you so much for that detailed overview. So, Justin, my next question is for you. What is Swarm‑Intelligent Preparedness and why does it matter? What are the implications, and how does it support what Rachael just described?

JUSTIN SNAIR
Do I have an hour? Can I take an hour?

MARGAUX HAVILAND
You have a couple minutes.

JUSTIN SNAIR
All right, the highest-level ones.

MARGAUX HAVILAND
The Cliff Notes.

JUSTIN SNAIR
Right. The Cliff Notes on this. Like Rachael said, there is an ideal state we want on Public Health and Preparedness Management. We want, obviously, community effectiveness and engagement with groups, but there are barriers to that. There are metrics. There are structural barriers, resource barriers. Even the way we approach preparedness tends to be top‑down. It is centrally controlled, and it is just not practical, often, to include 1,000 communities, community groups, and designing tabletop exercises. You can't find the room for it. Literally it is not possible to clue 1,000.

When we tried to engage in the past, I don't want to fill out a survey response. I don't trust government. There are a bunch of other responses you get from Community Groups over time. So, what we are trying to do is say what if you remove that central note, the top‑down, hierarchal, we want you to do this and we will tell you how to engage with us.

So, to do that you have to ‑‑ how do you do exercise design in a church? Or a school? You need expertise. So, that hasn't been scalable.

What we initially have done is made a tool that allows you to approximate the expertise needed for tabletop conversational design.

So, if we take it and scale it ‑‑ scale it to whom? How many different groups can we put it toward. So, that is the central question. Can we make it available to any group, whether they experts or not. When we do that, does it add meaningful content or data to the folks that are professionals? That is what, Rachael, think are the two key questions, right?

Can it scale this and make it accessible to groups that have never had access to exercise, design and preparedness‑planning for and to do that, does it do anything worthwhile? I am not sure. So we are trying to find out.

So, Swarm‑Intelligent Preparedness involves several things. Really, it is Collective Intelligence, and it is coming from something that isn't obvious. You are not seeing the qualms coming out of this. The people are invisible in the room. It is like biology, you see the flock of birds flying around, or you know what moves the ants. But you don't know how they are communicating, what strings are being pulled to make that cooperative movement.

So, what happens if an Emergency Management Professional says, I want to design access with a thousand groups. They may say, I am worried about hurricanes. So, a thousand groups are invited in, and then they get to go through a process of design. Through that it creates different types of data that the Emergency Manager didn't read. Preppr reads, and infuses the Intelligence throughout all the users.

This may seem like advanced sci‑fi stuff, but the Collective Intelligence has been thought about for decades. And it has been applied to different areas so the question is how do we apply Collective Intelligence to this aspect.

There are a lot of policies. First, government needs to be able to use AI. That is problem one. They are also pushing out software that gives access to churches, schools, Community Groups, small businesses, non‑profits, maybe even households. They are saying, not only do we want to use AI, we want you to use AI.

So, now they have an enabling entity where I have never seen ‑‑ I have only seen one Public Health Policy that says not only will we use it, we will help you use it, but not without our supervision.

So, that is why we are talking. It creates this really concentric circle around, we are already struggling with policy for government. What happens when we say our policy is to enable others to do it?

So, the Swarm Intelligence is following simple rules. There is no central control. It accounts for interactive and invisible communication. It adapts. It is hyper‑local. And it deals with kind of emergent behavior from those local nodes, those groups using it, to build some Collective Intelligence.

Collective Preparedness sounds like a really good idea, but there is policy, money, time ‑‑ a bunch of different variables to it. So we are funding this with the New York City Recovery Institute, so we get to build a test before we go full‑throttle into a multimillion‑dollar product.

MARGAUX HAVILAND
Thank you for that. And for leading us into our next question in terms of policy challenges.

So, this question is for Tatiana. What kind of policies could help ensure something like this is both possible and safe? And if we are moving toward this in preparedness, what policies need to be in place?

TATIANA LIN
Thank you so much. I think that is a great and a very fun question and very challenging question.

One thought that I want to kind of start with, I think we really need to flip how we traditionally think about policy.

Instead of using policy to control innovation, and top‑down approach, we need different policies that actually enable trust, kind of the ground‑up level.

If you are really moving in the direction, like thinking about, the example that Justin gave, as well as Rachael, about neighbors sharing quality sensor data. If volunteers train local AI Models, I am thinking about three things that need to be part of the policy.

Firstly, enable participation. It needs to protect communities and actually ensure accountability.

So, we think of the policy, what that operationally means. Sometimes we spend a lot of time thinking about protection data, but we need to pause and protect people. So, what does it actually mean?

It is about making sure that the data that communities are contributing isn't used against them. Now, for example, if someone is sharing recent data about flooding, it shouldn't be used to come back to them about increasing insurance rates. That is what we need to figure out how to address it through policy.

We need to safeguard policies about this potential misuse in communities, first, and that approach.

The second one, we need to figure out in the policy how we build a consent into the system. Consent is important because communities need to know how the data they are contributing will be used, how it will be shared, and if they have an option to opt‑in and opt‑out.

Another issue there is considering it shouldn't be, like, a 20‑page use document, a group of documents. How can we do it in an easier way for the Dashboard audit processes.

And the last point, in a policy‑development space, we need to really invest in local Intelligence. So, at one point there, and Justin mentioned, it is really localized, where models are localized, we need to have people closest to the risk to be part of the decision‑making.

So, the policy spaces need to include the funding mechanism to support communities so the funding doesn't go from the policy to the task, but it goes to communities and co‑design solutions.

And later I would love to talk more about policy space for organizations where you enable others to use that.

MARGAUX HAVILAND
That is great. Thank you so much. I am really starting to think of that concept of flipping the concept of policy and about it enabling trust, versus it being kind of a barrier and a constraint. That is really interesting. Thank you so much.

So, our next question is going to be for Rachael.

So, to make Swarm Intelligence truly a preparedness reality, what kind of prospect or collaboration to folks need to be thinking about?

RACHAEL PILTCH-LOEB
Yes. Thank you for that. I think, you know, there is a ton of ‑‑ there is a ton of players, I think, that could be engaged by using Swarm Intelligence, and that is what is so exciting about it.

When I think of Swarm Intelligence, and Justin did a good job of explaining to me that what we mean, really, when we are thinking about the Swarm, but I think it is parallel to this need for a diverse Stakeholder Engagement from the variety of different players so we can think of sectors we have not been able to traditionally engage in exercise design, or kind of a variety of starting of exercise design, because it is one closed task that we can examine.

But that we can engage, in general, in preparedness. So, the education sector, a variety of smaller local businesses, a variety of different kind of community organizations and groups that, maybe, otherwise are not able to come in‑person or attend events. Think of local restaurants. You can think of Senior Centers. Insert your sector that is the priority.

But I think the sky is the limit a little bit in terms of who we could engage by using these approaches. I think that there may be some barriers in terms of comfort with technology.

But recognizing that this is ‑‑ technology is not going away. As Tatiana and Justin are both talking about, we need to think of ways in which we can use it to be meaningful for the activities that are priorities.

So, I think with ‑‑ and something that is built into this tool and could be built into many tools, I think with the right kind of guidance on how technology can work for you, meaning the Community Groups and the organizations that are initiating, in this case governmental Public Health, the use of technology, we can all work together to kind of build that comfort.

I think that one thing that is really important when we think about kind of this cross‑sector collaboration is thinking about ways in which we can talk about the use of technology, and we can talk about the use of these tools so that it becomes something that those groups own, rather than something that is being pushed on them.

I think that parallels very much with what Tatiana was just saying, and perhaps some of the things Justin is thinking about in building out Preppr.

So, the goal is to engage as many organizations, I think, as possible. I think that in order to build these things effectively, we have to think about, you know, kind of Communication Science, we have to think about technology, we have to think about governmental actors, so we have the right kind of infrastructure available, so that information is going to work the way we want it to, and that people are going to understand it in order to be able to use it.

MARGAUX HAVILAND
I have a follow‑up question. I know that you have insights spanning sectors. I am thinking about all the folks who have joined us today, that they may be wondering, how do I get tech, Public Health, and communities aligned around an approach like this so that everybody has a shared common goal?

RACHAEL PILTCH-LOEB
Yeah. I think it is a great question and something we are still thinking about. To kind of offer some suggestions, I think that in thinking about the proposal that we wrote to examine Preppr, and the kind of funding that we received, we really thought about how do we design kind of the pitch around this, and the input, you know, how do we write out the scripts so that when somebody comes to a tech platform, they are not taken aback by what they are experiencing.

So, I think that, you know, process ‑wise, the goal is to build a participatory input process around the use of this tool, right?

So, I think we are lucky in the sense that Justin has Public Health Preparedness experience, so we are not starting from scratch in trying to explain technology to somebody who is not familiar with the field, or vice versa. I think that translation component is important.

So, the translation component is important between tech and Public Health, and Public Health and Community. It is synergistic so everybody is able to speak that same language.

As I kind of mentioned at the beginning of my comments, I needed a lot translated to me. I think that it is reflective of the fact that practitioners, academics, and different community organizations, tech companies, we all speak different languages.

So, I think we need to kind of have that translation of terms happen ahead of time, with some smaller groups to get perspective while these tools are being build built out.

So, Justin and I are thinking about that in the study and engagement of developing technology and Tatiana is thinking of that in how it to be part of the technology translation process.

So, it requires front‑work, so we are not just saying here is a tool, go use it. And then people are, like, excuse me? What are you dumping on me? So it makes people's lives more engaged, and not more challenging and difficult.

So, in evaluating companies, we will be looking at the messages. Did you understand what the task was? Did this improve your knowledge of AI? Did it improve your comfort with AI? Even if you are not vibing with what the tool is meant to do, did you understand more about what Artificial Intelligence could do to support your work? So, there are a lot of steps built into this evaluation, or that is the intention.

There are a variety of things that could happen to support the field, even if the initial tool we are examining is not the perfect one. Justin, that is not to say it won't be, but I think the goal is to try and make sure that we are ‑‑ we have built an effective script and process to bring different stakeholders along in understanding the technology and get their feedback about those components, as well.

MARGAUX HAVILAND
Thank you. It sounds like quite the undertaking. Obviously, a challenging process, but the work that you guys are doing sounds like a really unique opportunity to share, kind of, a Case Study of this collaboration you are doing, and what folks should be looking for, and how they should be thinking about this.

It is exciting that we can share some of that with them today. That brings me to my next question for Justin.

So, Rachael is independently evaluating Preppr.ai. Why did you want that to actually happen?

JUSTIN SNAIR
I am a masochist, I guess? (Chuckles) I don't know. So, I came from a military government, Public Sector, consulting, so I wear a bunch of different hats.

The tech part is relatively new. It is the last one‑and‑a‑half years. And I happen to be a well‑intentioned tech person. I happen to be.

I happen to come from a diverse background that intersected with people like Tatiana and Rachael and all these other folks that, you know, I know are working at this collectively.

I also have encountered tech in the past where I didn't trust it. It was using the data against me, the numbers.

And trying to look to preparedness, fixing it, when there is a bunch to fix, and I happen to be doing it with technology now, I can't ignore there are trust issues with government, with process, with technology, with policies. So, I can't just say, hey, I built a tech that is shiny, come and use it. That won't engender trust at all.

They may not know I have the best of intentions.

So, I would love to see, we evaluated Swarm‑Intelligent Preparedness awareness and said it didn't work. I would love to. Honestly, my motive is to build something that fixes a problem, raises capital around fixing that problem.

Honestly, I am not no sure that this crazy idea of an invisible communication system between thousands of different groups will work. So, I don't want to spend a quarter million dollars on it if it doesn't work. So independent evaluation is really useful. It is aligned with Private Sector motives. Put it out there, replicate it, make it better.

Maybe I am just a bad Private Sector CEO. I within the want this independent evaluation. I want competitors. I want to 'err the process, because even if I fail at this, Rachael's evaluation could help someone else be successful at it.

Or keep us from going down a road no one is ready for. This may be a leap too far. Not only should we use AI, we should let everyone use AI, then the AI is sitting in the middle, and don't worry, trust us. That is a big bleep.

But I don't think government could make this fast enough. I don't think researchers could make it, and Private Sector could.

So, we are should, if we can ‑‑ like, we would still be talking about it if I was making this in Dublin. So, I think this is an alignment of motives. I can move fast. Rachael can evaluate with credibility. Tatiana can help with policies and the implications of it. That is how we should be building everything.

MARGAUX HAVILAND
Thanks for that. Essentially open the hood and are open to the criticism, evaluation, to try and make this better for its use, which I think everyone who is joining us today can appreciate.

Like you said, you have shared motivation, and so I think it is going to be one thing for folks to definitely look for, as they are exploring this independently.

But you did bring up something that is a quo in terms of Public Health lagging behind sometimes.

Not by any effort of our own, but just the way it has been going.

But for everything that Justin just mentioned, Tatiana, what policies and strategy, opportunities or challenges, do some of those things raise for you?

TATIANA LIN
Thank you so much. I think it is a very timely question. As we talk about innovation, it always comes with some opportunities and challenges. Especially if we are moving toward, and as Justin described this earlier, if we are not just using AI internally but opening up the Swarm Model for others to use, it comes from organization to user and enabler of the whole ecosystem.

What is excited about it is the Collective Intelligence opportunities. So, from a single source of information, now you have realtime data, potential for realtime data, from across communities. And Rachael brought up, schools, clinics, citizens, shelters or other individuals, in that this realtime situation of awareness can really help, I think, Public Health and other fields in this early detection and kind of resource allocation.

It is also, I think another exciting component, is building the resilience through agency. I think this is important because we are not just, kind of, opening up and working with communities and allowing them to contribute results. Maybe even interpreting the information and flagging that blind spot. Not just skilling the tools, but skilling the trust that ownership and additional participation. So, that is all the exciting part.

So, what is really risky here? Risky is that the Swarm Models are probably as good as the rules that guide it. We have so many hands in that mix. So, then, the accountability becomes really blurry. In something goes wrong, who is accountable for that.

Another risk, we know organizations are different sizes, have different skillsets, and different scopes, so, they really have uneven footing. So, it is ironic that the centralized model, if it is not done right, can end up concentrating the power in the hands of particular players who have more capacity, more skills and more to offer.

So, it is really thinking through that design. And from the policy perspective, how to address that.

JUSTIN SNAIR
Can I jump in real quick?

MARGAUX HAVILAND
Go for it.

JUSTIN SNAIR
Very important, Tatiana. She raised things ‑‑ this particular one, I was thinking a year ago, Rachael, when we first started proposal this, almost a year ago, right? I was trying to imagine, what is the process, the typical process for an exercise designer in government more aligned with planning. Then reasoning the planning.

Maybe I decide I was going to include 50 groups in my planning, and then I can make sense of all that information.

Even if I invited those people, I made a decision who came into the door. So that is problem number one. Number two, saying they are invited, best of intentions for me, and then they had to make the decision to leave work, leave their regular business, I go to a government building, show ID, sit across people potentially uniformed. All these frictions to inclusion that my best of intention is to be more inclusive, but it is still not optimal.

So, some of those folks, say we do a lot of that with tech. You don't have to show up in the room. The central note isn't even reading what you are doing. There is trustworthy agents in the middle of it that is taking care of all of the mess.

They still may not have access to the computers, the internet, the sophistication of using governmental AI. There are still a bunch of things. and they may not have the trust to government. I don't care if you give me the best solution ever that gives me everything I want, I still don't trust you. No software will fix that.

I am a pragmatist with this. If I can catch 50% of the folks that otherwise weren't able to participate because it was impractical, from a tech perspective, I am okay. I will start to build and adapt to get the last 50%. But that thinking is inconsistent with public opinion.

Where, a bunch of Public Health people are like, wait, this will only help 50% of folks?

What about the other 50%? So, we have the instinct to start designing for folks that have the hardest position to adopt, design and build. So, really it is contributions. I am coming in and asking, who can I get as easy as possible to participate, then spend all of the effort, a bunch more effort getting folks that don't participate and have a bunch of reasons, and come up with a fix.

That could be a year of trust‑building conversations over coffee. And I am not going to fix that scale for the nation through a tech platform.

It won't fix everything that doesn't enable in certain ways everything. So that is why Rachael is here, otherwise I would not be able to do it at all.

It is interesting when we try to provide a solution, that it does actually exclude folks, still.

RACHAEL PILTCH-LOEB
I will add ‑‑

MARGAUX HAVILAND
Go ahead.

RACHAEL PILTCH-LOEB
‑‑ if it is okay. Sorry.

MARGAUX HAVILAND
Yeah. Go ahead!

RACHAEL PILTCH-LOEB
Amazing. I think, it is not binary whether or not tech helps. I think that the question is, in what ways does it help? Who does it help? And how? Right? So, it is not going to ‑‑ it is not going to solve, kind of, like, pre‑existing mistrust that could take decades to improve on, as Justin was alluding to.

A tech platform, a risk communication approach, is not going to change, like, a policy, right? I think that we have to recognize that there is a lot that precedes the use of a tool, or a strategy, in trying to improve, kind of, preparedness and ultimately how we would respond.

That being said, there are a lot of ways in which we can improve upon Public Health Practice, especially we can try and think about we are also going to need to ‑‑ right now we need to do more, or as much with less.

So, the question is, you know, recognizing that there are these tools available, and it is helpful to try and understand what aspects of those tools can be beneficial?

So, from my perspective, when in kind of, like, thinking about the measurement and evaluation of this, it is not, you know, does it work? But it is, like, what components of this are valuable? How can we take those and kind of run with it?

So, is it that we are improving touchpoints with Community Groups. If so, great, because there is exposure.

Did we increase the dialogues with existing groups. That could be beneficial in strengthening relationships.

Did we help the Workforce in our exposure to and comfort with AI. And ultimately, did I change how we would approach anything in the planning process.

So, I think there is a lot of value in trying to, like, tease apart these different ways in which Preppr or any kind of use of new technology can benefit the field.

I think my perspective and what excited me on working on this with Justin, is being excited to tease things apart because then we can work with the components we are seeing the most value in, especially in these more constrained kind of times.

MARGAUX HAVILAND
I think that is a great way to really digest it in terms of liking for it to ‑‑ looking for it to make ‑‑ it doesn't have to all be perfect, but is it making small gains, and what parts of it can work for you?

But we are to our very last question because we are starting to run out of time. I did want to mention, though, for folks joining us today, there are related resources in the Chat. There is a form to express interest in the Preppr pilot, and there is also a resource developing AI policies for Public Health Organizations, and then a template with guidance.

So, those are available in the Chat, and they will also be available when we share out the recording in a couple of weeks. But for our last question, I ask all of you, looking ahead, what is the biggest policy or public change that will impact Public Health Disasters and what needs to happen to make that change. And we will start first with Tatiana.

TATIANA LIN
I mean, I love this question, because I feel like sometimes we have to be in Public Health and immersive preparedness to spare re-effectiveness, or our budget and skillset strengths, so I love we can kind of dream of a little bit here.

One thought, one idea is to build on what Justin and Rachael are trying to do, is to throughout communities to train their own AI.

So, in that particular case, it is a different line of top‑down system. Could this really build the centralized Swarm‑like Intelligence? Those that got closer and are affected by the risk. I shared examples of neighbors sharing quality data, having local health workers kind of train the models and their line of science of outbreaks.

I think the potential of power is to shifting power of preparedness. What it will take, how realistic it is, thinking of the local data cooperatives model, perhaps, and using open‑sourced tools and maybe leveraging public‑private partnerships, as well, to make it happen.

We need to make sure it can go this route to continue to build models, how do we plug into is so‑called emergency protocol so is they are not done separately.

I will pause there.

MARGAUX HAVILAND
All right. Thank you so much. Rachael. Your turn to weigh in.

RACHAEL PILTCH-LOEB
Yeah. It is hard to not kind of pick up in some ways on where Tatiana left off. So, I will throw in a few additional thoughts to that and kind of elaborate.

But I think we are entering kind of an opportunity and space where we have the luck and challenge of having really specific hyper and local data about individuals and the environment. And that is exciting in the sense that we can really advance and tailor meaningful Public Health strategies to local communities and states. We know this is what private companies tend to do with so much information about us as consumers.

So, I think there is an exciting future where we can be using that information about kind of the risks and vulnerabilities and individual vulnerabilities or community risk to kind of advance how we are preparing for and helping, kind of, the most vulnerable members of our community in a given area.

Whether that is in increasing, kind of ‑‑ there are ways to do that just don't build on existing and local data, but increasing wearable sensors, or how we are getting environmental information in a given community.

I think we have a future where we have a lot of hyper local data across different entities and individuals, and we can integrate that into something that is meaningful.

I think that what is critical is we also don't forget to gather information ‑‑ and this is what kind of some Chat tools can do ‑‑ on people's perspectives.

I think we have objective data, then we have subjective perspectives, too. I think ‑‑ look, I love getting served ads that are, you know, spot‑on and help me decide what shirt I want to buy sometimes, but I also think that there is value in continuing to solicit information from folk's perspective.

So, I think we need to combine this hyper local data that exists out there already with the input from individuals. I think we need to evaluate it in center ways in terms of whether the folks would leave their home, planning, et cetera.

So, I am looking forward to a world where we kind of continue to bring those perspectives together, and to make meaningful preparedness approaches and think about our response more effectively.

I think the only other thing I would add is that a Domain that we are struggling with that is, you know, being disrupted naturally, and that we will want to continue to think about how we can support is this general challenge of Workforce for Public Health. I think technology and tools can help the Workforce, not replace it. So, I want to think of how are we as folks thinking about the use of technology, doing our best to support the Public Health Workforce, and how to use it, and what it can do and what it means, because, you know, people need people.

I think that is still something that is critical for us to be thinking about as the world continues to evolve.

MARGAUX HAVILAND
I really appreciate your comments about Workforce. I am guessing that really resonates with the audience today in terms of the disruptions we have all experienced these last couple weeks, especially in State and Local Public Health, partners, and coming and reaching association partners, as well. So, I think that is critical.

I think Justin also has thoughts on how folks with can think about the use of these tools, and how it supports workforce and not replacing workforce. Any other final thoughts, Justin? I will let us round us out here.

JUSTIN SNAIR
I am last not because I have the final word. They gave me good ideas. I will steal your thoughts. (Chuckles)

So, I am in two lanes. I am most excited about concern, as well. Disasters are getting worse. We have an 85% increase in disaster damage from one year to another. Luckily deaths are going down. But damage is certainly going up.

Resources are going down. We all know that.

Unfortunately, it is not just change, but we are expected to do more. The executions are getting harder.

So, I am a pragmatist. When I see increasing demand, decreasing resources and an increase of expectations the and performance, you see one of two paths. It is either, we don't do anything different. Oh, shucks, which we can't do in public, right? Or we look for alternatives, innovations and tools.

There are other examples we have done that maybe a little too slow, but we reach for tools and changes.

So, I don't think we update it fast enough for the use of the internet and Social Media. I think it took us 20 years too long to see the pros and cons of all of that.

AI is moving way faster than the age of the internet did. We have accelerated. So, we can't spend a lot of time saying that we don't believe electricity will work. We can't do that anymore. Electricity works. It works in a million different ways, never intended for other than lighting up a lightbulb.

So, we have to just acknowledge AI is here, it is not doing everything we think it can do, and it is doing a lot more than we are probably comfortable with.

So, we need to stop arguing whether or not there is a place for AI, Public Health and Public Health Preparedness, instead, argue over whether you have a space in your office.

And while we were debating it, I think folks not always well‑intentioned will see a way to monetize certain aspects of the change in this environment, won't coordinate with Public Health.

They have very little incentive to do so. I am an anomaly where I came from Public Health. I want to be evaluated. I want to be in an ecosystem of data, but not everyone wants it.

So, while we are all debating in Public Health, the appropriateness of AI, there are folks that are going to make stuff and try to sell it to you. If you skip the whole conversation around AI, you won't even know how to assess and reject some of the snake oil salesmen that will be trying to sell you solutions.

So, that is one side. Get on board with this. It won't replace you, but there are certain things you do that can be accelerated, reduced in cost, and help you keep up with changing applications.

The other side is for the citizens and Community Groups ‑‑ and this presents an opportunity where it is not just personalization, but it is hyper‑representativeness. So, while all this noise that is coming out, that is blocking Public Health messages from getting out, there is a ton of information going out.

So, it is a tidal wave. There are going to be AI solutions made for individuals, households and businesses, effectively the Chief of Staff for everyone, that will help make sense of this tidal wave of information coming out.

Not just personalizing, but it will say, hey, Rachael released a really good study that you should pay attention to. But ignore the million other things in your email box. And that is the kind of stuff that I think the Chief of Staff enabled ‑‑ everyone gets a Chief of Staff that knows you, that is the defense against the noise, while letting in the good.

So, block the ads. Let in Rachael's communication. This isn't just advanced filtering. It will take us participating with AI.

If you are trying to go and build an AI thing like I am, AI consistently misinterprets Public Health with Healthcare. You are the white coat. We need to participate. I spend a year‑and‑a‑half understanding Public Health. It is a fault that thinks you are doctors. So, our lack of participation is doing us a disservice.

We should be training models. We should be putting data out on the internet to train models. We should be working with tech companies to say I don't wear a white coat, otherwise you will have things made for you and it will otherwise perpetuate the status quo.

So, that is a measured, I am excited, but I am fundamentally scared. So, that is how I will close it. This is giving value.

MARGAUX HAVILAND
I think that brings up a really great point. If Public Health doesn't participate, we will continue to get left behind and not included. Because even when you try and search the basic things of imagery that we have been experiencing, the same with this project, imagery, like searches, don't know what Public Health is, and you just get hospitals.

So, yes. If we don't participate, then we are not going to be included in what is happening.

Thank you so much for that insight. And thank you to everyone who has joined us today. We have a couple minutes left and I will try for us to get to these three questions. If one of our panelists will jump in to try to answer.

The first one I will give you guys I think will be for Rachael. This is, I know how you said the model is built upon hyper‑local data. Is there a plan or ability to review over‑arching themes that apply more broadly?

RACHAEL PILTCH-LOEB
The short answer is yes. In terms of kind of the, this is where I feel like academics have time to shine in thinking of doing the cross‑input analysis, and where the tool itself is actually really helpful, in being able to look at similarities across pilot sites, where it can do keyword searches, you can do qualitative analysis, to identify what are common themes that are coming up.

Either across Community Groups, across the Swarm, the players that come to Utah the tool, and across the central nodes, the governmental organizations, and sort of, we can look at it from both perspectives, to come out with some common themes.

So, the short answer is yes, absolutely, and we are looking forward to seeing what those look like.

MARGAUX HAVILAND
Great. Thank you for that. This next question might be our last question, but we will try to get to both of them.

To everybody, do we know any successes anywhere that this type of readiness is happening in preparedness? Or are you guys the first?

JUSTIN SNAIR
Okay. We are the first. No, um, there is decades of work in Swarm Intelligence ‑‑ fill in the blank ‑‑ but I would say there have been initiatives in preparedness and readiness where Collective Intelligence has certainly been the goal and the point.

I struggle to find link a specific example within preparedness where this technology is being applied. It is so niché that no Apple, Google, no big company is coming in to save us. It is a very niché problem which is why it is juicy and I want to tackle it. So, I don't think it has been applied to Public Health or Emergency Preparedness specifically, outside of drone technology, which isn't what we are trying to do.

We are trying to make Swarm Intelligence between people and organizations ‑‑ not machines. Yeah. I haven't seen it yet.

MARGAUX HAVILAND
Great. We have less than a minute, potentially less. I think this last question goes back to Rachael. Folks interested in if you are reach reaching out to cert teams since they are plugged into local communities. Is that something you guys have been doing in terms of the community emergency response teams?

RACHAEL PILTCH-LOEB
I can answer in the context of the pilot. Which is for study design purposes we want to have the same central nodes, which are state, and much to Justin's desire to go very big with this pilot. We are beginning for our pilot and what we are evaluating with having the same central node. It needs to be a governmental, Public Health Agency, that is initiating the exercise design process.

And it is then that organization, that Local or State Health Department's prerogative who they invite to participate in their Swarm.

So, we hope to engage with cert teams, but it is not our choice. I think that is what is exciting about this process. It is really to put the tools in the hands of Local and State Public Health and say, who do you want to involve? How do you want to use this? Here is a free tool ‑‑ go. In terms of offering guidance on how to use it, etc. So, that is the pilot. And the evaluation associated with it, we wanted that kind of consistency.

But in general, the goal is to go broad, and not be limited in that regard. I know he Justin has gotten a lot of interest from a variety of different entities that are interested in being that central node.

So, it is a great idea, and it is a great suggestion, and we will see who ends up participating.

Final plug, if you are interested, let us know your information so that we can keep you in mind as we go about the launch on that Google Form.

MARGAUX HAVILAND
Thank you so much. We are completely out of time. We are a little over time. So, if you would like information to connect with the staff. This is our last and final slide. We have additional resources on any information in the Chat, as well. Here is how to contact us and find us.

We also have a code to evaluate this session. We would appreciate your insights, so go ahead and scan the QR Code and give us your feedback. 

Thank you, Tatiana, Rachael and Justin, for being with us here today. This has been a wonderful conversation. I think it is super timely, and I think folks need to realize it is time to talk about this, because it is not going away, and Public Health needs to be a part of it. We need to make sure we are included, represented, and we can leverage these tools, especially with everything that just happened in Public Health.

So, with that, I will thank everyone else for joining us today, all the participants. And have a wonderful afternoon. We will keep this open for just a minute or so if folks are still trying to get resources and/or scan the QR Code, but have a great afternoon.