Emergency management agencies are beginning to use artificial intelligence informally to draft public messages, even though official adoption remains limited. EM1 has contracts with about 100 government agencies and school districts, but none currently use its software to automate extreme-weather warnings. Experts warn that while chatbots can help experienced professionals produce alerts quickly, poorly reviewed AI-generated messages could undermine public trust, contribute to alarm fatigue and create risks during emergencies.
Emergency managers are already using chatbots informally
For now, EM1’s government and school-district clients use the technology for workshop planning and internal preparation rather than automated warnings. Still, all the experts interviewed for this article said they are certain that many emergency managers are already using chatbots to craft messages, even if they do not want to acknowledge it publicly.
Sutton says emergency managers who attend her alert-training sessions often show her high-quality alerts that they created in seconds with ChatGPT or Gemini.
“Official adoption rates are pretty low, but people use it informally, definitely,” says Sarah Miller, a professor of emergency management at Pierce College in Florida and a longtime instructor at the National Disaster Preparedness Training Center. “They’re either using their personal account or they’re using a free account.”
AI-generated alerts could undermine public trust
The appeal is straightforward: if AI can produce warnings more quickly and effectively than humans, and the difference between a good alarm and a bad one can be the difference between life and death, agencies may be tempted to use it for every heat wave and wildfire.
But even researchers who are optimistic about chatbot technology say the shift could backfire. People who are skeptical of AI or already distrust government may reject institutions that publish AI-generated graphics or social media posts. In Syracuse, New York, for example, a public employee union sued the local government over its use of AI services to respond to non-emergency 911 calls.
“AI-generated content doesn’t feel authentic,” said Ginny Katz, founder of HasAdapt, a consultancy that helps disaster managers use technology.
Chatbots could also enable emergency managers to issue more alerts in less time, potentially increasing the risk of alarm fatigue, in which people become desensitized to frequent warnings and stop responding to them.
Human oversight remains essential
As in other fields adopting AI, disaster experts say the software is currently only as capable as the people using it. Experienced emergency managers may be able to accelerate public communications by asking a chatbot to draft a series of alerts. However, inexperienced managers rushing to create emergency warnings may not know how to evaluate the output of systems such as ChatGPT or Claude.
The technology is still far from operating without human experts, but that has not stopped many understaffed emergency management departments from using it. Experts say it is too early to determine how the spread of AI-generated content will affect public trust in government.
“Which do you think is more accurate: a human sending a text message or a computer sending a text message?” said Justin Snare, founder of Preppr, another company that provides AI software to emergency managers.
The answer, he said, depends on the person receiving it.
Source: www.wired.com