Computing of tomorrow
The Social and Ethical Responsibilities (SERC) initiative challenged students to imagine “the future of computing,” with $10,000 on the line
Jieruei Chang–The Tech
Jieruei Chang–The Tech
Jieruei Chang–The Tech
Jieruei Chang–The Tech
The instructions are few: write an essay ― of any form ― imagining how emergent technologies could shape the world. No more than 3,000 words. Grand prize of $10,000.
The 2025 Envisioning the Future of Computing Prize was organized by the Social and Ethical Responsibilities of Computing (SERC) initiative within the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing in collaboration with the School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences (SHASS). The assignment asked MIT students to describe a computing-related technology that could improve human lives and analyze its potential dangers. Three finalists were selected from 67 entries, to be judged by a live panel on May 5. Two runner-ups would win $5,000 each, while the top essay would win $10,000.
Annaliese Meyer, a Ph.D. Candidate in the joint MIT-Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (MIT-WHOI) Program, is one of those finalists. “I have a microbiology background,” Meyer said. “And you know, I’ve always really enjoyed writing fiction, so when I saw the call, it seemed like a great opportunity to combine the things I care about.”
The judging took place at a lavish dinner in the Schwarzman College on a cloudy Monday night. As the guests drizzled in, the atmosphere came alive with the clinking of silverware and the rustling of napkins. Guests consumed wine. Warm laughter echoed across the tables. Conversations began to hum.
“It’s my first time here, so I have no expectations,” Maria Yang ’91, professor in Mechanical Engineering and Associate Dean of Engineering at MIT, said. “But I feel like AI and computing really pervades all the disciplines at MIT and in the world right now. So it’s really important that we think really carefully about how we use those tools.”
Beside her was Doug Barnard ’79, an advisor in the Schwarzman College of Computing. He flew in from Chicago to attend the event. “I worked on military projects with my physics background that gave me real concerns about the ethics of what I was doing,” Barnard said. “Now that AI has the same potential that physics has to affect everyone for better or worse, I think it’s important that today’s students learning about AI have a solid grounding in ethics.”
The room settled down as the evening began. The first finalist to present was Martin Staadecker, a master’s student in the MIT Technology Policy Program (TPP). He was slender and sharply dressed; there was a hint of a nervous wobble in his voice that quickly subsided. Staadecker talked about “Fossil Tokens,” a scheme to concretely quantify an individual’s carbon emissions, and expressed hope that it could help eco-conscious users make more informed purchasing decisions.
In his 13-minute speech, Staadecker described how tokens ― each representing one kilogram of carbon dioxide ― would be passed from sources of emissions through a supply-chain network of businesses before finally aggregating in consumers’ bank accounts. All this, he said, could be done almost purely by leveraging existing transaction technologies.
Staadecker fielded questions on the feasibility, the efficacy of such tokens on actually driving consumer behavior, and the potential for government misuse.
Next on the podium was Juan Santoyo, a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences. In a striped sweatshirt, he spoke in the tone of a murmuring storyteller, spinning a tale of an AI built as a healer in a far-flung war.
“Do you remember my name, child?” asked the AI in the story.
“Sage,” came the reply.
“And do you remember what my purpose is?”
“Your purpose is to understand and reduce our mental suffering as best as you can.”
Softly but eloquently — partially aided by a graphic of an AI-generated healer monkey — he imagined a model capable of not just processing language, but also mimicking embodied empathy through physical interaction and sensory feedback. Santoyo’s presentation asked what would happen if AI was given a sense of viscerality, a presence in the physical world ― a body capable of moving and feeling pain like a normal human, rather than one that is purely robotic. Even if language models are “just a pattern recognition and response matching algorithms,” Santoyo argued, it’s possible that such a sufficiently advanced AI could feel emotion.
Because Sage had a body, Santoyo argued that he began to feel the weight of suffering, experiencing not just the loss of others, but also the physical toll of his own limitations and failures, eventually threatening the world with destruction unless the war ends.
Santoyo ended with a call to action: even if today’s AIs are far from Sage, people should act with the “seven generations principle” in mind and make decisions not just for the present but for the future. Santoyo advocated for considering how our creations will impact the world far in the future, and emphasized building empathy, responsibility, and accountability into every step along the way. “If one day we create minds more capable than our own, we must ensure that they will believe in us,” he said.
Meyer took the stage last. With confident posture and a slightly mischievous smile, she looked like a turn-of-the-millenium Silicon Valley startup cofounder (with an all-black outfit to suit).
“Today, I’d like to introduce you to B-Bots,” she began. She described a novel kind of miniature robot, designed to improve microbiome health by traveling to the gut, pretending to be a bacterium, and releasing synthetic bacterial supplements. The design was remarkably detailed for a fictitious device. Electrically conductive proteins would be used for movement and piezoelectric components that harvest energy from normal bodily motion would be used to power it. If the robot needed to be deactivated, the provided B-Bots app could be used to turn it off over Bluetooth. She claimed a near-endless list of possible health benefits: solutions to depression. Schizophrenia. Parkinson’s. Cardiac disease. Acid reflux.
Then, breaking character, Meyer described its risks. The company could decide to adopt a subscription model, threatening to deactivate the B-Bots if users couldn’t pay up. There’s a chance that the B-Bots could make themselves an integral “keystone” of a microbiome that other bacteria rely upon, causing B-Bot deactivation to lead to a total collapse of the gut environment. It would be possible to mitigate these risks, but “if you stopped paying, no company that I know of would help you wean you off, or take you to a doctor to help manage the transition,” she said. She closed with a cautious warning as well as a note of optimism. New healthcare technologies, she said, “can and will do a lot of good ― if they’re put in the hands of those who aren’t in it for the profit.”
The audience digested the presentation (and the food). The judges disappeared single-file into the hallway to engage in presumably tense and thorough deliberation. Ten minutes later, they re-emerged. The presenter hastily grabbed a microphone and announced Meyer and her work, titled “(Pre/Sub)scribe,” as the winner of the 2025 Envisioning the Future of Computing Prize. Her table and the rest of the room immediately burst into applause.
“I really wanted to hit the angle of how medical technology controlled by industry can go wrong,” Meyer said. She wanted to show how companies could “effectively hold you hostage with either choosing your health or choosing to make rent.”
Originally from Canada, Meyer described her initial shock at the American healthcare system. She recalled attending a rocketry competition in the Utah desert, learning that people had been passing out because they were afraid that they would be charged for using ambulances and paramedics. “And I think a lot of Americans, especially those who have never been anywhere else, don’t necessarily understand just how messed up that is,” she said.
At the end of the night, MIT President Sally Kornbluth was asked what she thought tomorrow’s technologies would hold. “One thing that was really interesting in tonight’s event was the very different answers that the three students who presented gave to that question,” she responded. “They talked about tiny machines. They talked about embodied AI and emotion. They talked about the interface of computing with our climate. And I think all of those are hallmarks of what we’re going to see in the future of computing.”