Gemini 3.1 Pro Surprises: Synthesizing the Top 10 AI Questions of 2024–2026
[EDRM Editor’s Note: EDRM is proud to publish Ralph Losey’s advocacy and analysis. All images in the article are by Ralph Losey using AI. Originally published on EDRM.net. This article remains the intellectual property of Ralph Losey and is shared with permission.]
I was recently struck by a capability in the pro version of Gemini that I hadn’t encountered before. Quite by accident, I discovered the model’s ability to do more than just scour the web for data. It can synthesize thousands of disparate data points, from workshop reports to tangential polls, to provide a coherent answer to a complex “meta” question.
My inquiry was specific: What do people actually want to know about AI? I wasn’t interested in usage statistics, but in conceptual gaps. When Gemini (and my own “trust but verify” follow-up) found no single poll on point, the AI pivoted. It inferred a top-ten ranking by analyzing the collective “curiosity” found across the web. The result is what Gemini called, perhaps with a smile, the “Top 10 Curiosity Index,” a list of the concepts that people are most “desperate to understand.“
All images by Ralph Losey using Nano Banana 2, except for the graphs by Gemini Pro.
From Synthesis to Software: Gemini’s Surprising Coding Capabilities
Beyond the data synthesis, Gemini 3.1 Pro surprised me by generating several hundred lines of custom code—largely unprompted—to facilitate sharing these findings. While I was aware of the Pro version’s coding reputation, I was unprepared for this level of sophistication. The AI didn’t just present the information; it built the visual infrastructure to host it, producing complex HTML and JavaScript in a matter of seconds.
The centerpiece of this technical feat is an interactive graph that allows readers to engage with the data directly. Gemini didn’t stop at the code; it acted as a technical consultant, guiding me through the WordPress installation and handling the inevitable troubleshooting with ease. The result is a level of user interactivity on my blog that I previously thought would require a dedicated developer.
While my syndicated readers on EDRM and JD Supra will see the same data in a static format (as those platforms understandably restrict custom internal code), you can experience the full interactive version of the Curiosity Index on the original e-DiscoveryTeam.com post.
The Top 10 Curiosity Index
A ranking of what the public is actively seeking to understand about AI, synthesized by Gemini 3.1 Pro from global search trends, forum discussions, and media inquiries. The words in this section are by Gemini.
1. How AI Thinks – 25%
How does AI actually ‘think’ or make decisions?
The ‘Black Box’ Enigma: Users are unsettled by outputs they cannot trace back to a logical process. They want analogies that bridge the gap between human reasoning and neural networks.
2. Job Security – 18%
Will AI take my job, and how do I prepare?
Economic Anxiety: The public is demanding highly practical, industry-specific explanations. People want to know the exact timeline of automation for their specific roles.
3. Data Privacy – 15%
How is my personal data being used to train AI?
The Privacy Paradox: Users want explained, in plain terms, whether their emails, private photos, or voice recordings are being scraped to train models.
4. Consciousness – 12%
Can AI develop consciousness or true emotions?
The Sentience Question: A large segment of the public is seeking a philosophical and technical breakdown of consciousness, questioning the line between simulated and real empathy.
5. Terminology – 9%
What is the difference between LLMs, Machine Learning, and GenAI?
Clearing the Jargon Fog: People want a foundational glossary that explains these terms without using more jargon.
6. Misinformation – 7%
How can we prevent AI from spreading misinformation?
Algorithmic Truth: The public wants to know how developers are addressing AI ‘hallucinations’ and what tools exist to verify synthetic text.
7. Copyright & IP – 5%
Who owns the copyright to AI-generated content?
IP Crisis: Creators and users are demanding legal clarity. If an AI trains on my art, am I owed royalties?
8. Environmental Impact – 4%
How much energy does AI consume?
Carbon Footprint: A growing niche is asking for the hidden environmental costs of cloud-based AI to be explained.
9. Prompting Skills – 3%
How do I effectively prompt an AI?
The ‘How-To’: Users want to understand the linguistic rules the AI prefers to generate better outcomes.
10. The Singularity – 2%
What happens when AI gets smarter than humans?
Superintelligence: The public wants to know if experts have a plan for containment if models surpass human cognitive abilities.
My Take: Bridging the Gap Between Vision and Inquiry
What struck me most about this data was the surprisingly low ranking of The Singularity and AGI. While my focus often rests on the profound, long-term implications of superintelligence, the index reveals a public currently focused on the immediate and negative. It is a classic case of the “here and now” overshadowing the “what’s next.”
Similarly, seeing Prompting Skills in second to last place in information needs with only 3% is disappointing. To me, this remains the critical lever for success with AI. This data doesn’t change my mission, but it certainly highlights the conceptual hurdles.
The others on the list and rankings were pretty much what I expected. They correspond to the types of questions I usually get when lecturing on AI.
Thematic Breakdown of the Information Demands
When we aggregate the specific questions, distinct macro-themes emerge. The following is Gemini’s categorization of the top 10 queries into four main domains. This is designed to show where the center of gravity lies in public consciousness.
What Dominates the Conversation?
1. Technical Mechanics:
Demystifying the ‘magic.’ People want the underlying architecture explained.
2. Socio-Economic:
Fear and planning regarding real-world consequences on careers and laws.
3. Ethics & Trust:
Concerns regarding data harvesting and the spread of unchecked bias.
4. Existential:
Philosophical inquiries regarding consciousness and humanity’s place.
Analysis of the Four Information Need Themes
The data confirms that people primarily want to understand the “how” of AI. This isn’t surprising, given that the major AI labs have been intentionally opaque. However, the landscape is shifting rapidly; as I noted in Breaking the AI Black Box: How DeepSeek’s Deep-Think Forced OpenAI’s Hand (Feb. 2025), the competition is finally forcing a level of transparency. Yet, even when pressed, top scientists admit they do not fully understand the internal mechanics of these models. This sentiment was echoed in Dario Amodei Warns of the Danger of Black Box AI that No One Understands (May 2025).
The second “hot zone” is socio-economic. The anxiety here is well-founded. The financial and environmental costs are staggering—the power consumption of modern AI is almost incomprehensible when you consider that the human brain operates on a mere 200 watts. As reported in AI Is Eating Data Center Power Demand—and It’s Only Getting Worse (May 2025, Wired), the strain on our infrastructure is only getting worse.
Regarding jobs, history shows a pattern: initial displacement followed by a surge in new roles. While many remain skeptical, I lean toward the optimism of voices like Wharton Professor Ethan Mollick, who predicts a new era of human-centric roles, including “Sin-Eaters” tasked with managing AI errors. Demonstration by analysis of an article predicting new jobs created by AI (July 2025).
We must also acknowledge a historical first: this is the first revolutionary technology made freely available to the masses from day one, not just an elite few. This accessibility should make retraining easier, but whether the displaced will successfully pivot remains to be seen.
“Ethics and Trust” holds a strong third place. In the legal world, “Trust but Verify” has become the mantra. Whether it’s identifying the Seven Cardinal Dangers or learning to Cross-Examine Your AI to cure hallucinations, these are the questions that dominate my lectures. With AI companies largely self-regulating, the burden of verification remains firmly on the user.
As for the “Existential” category—the lowest ranked—the fear of AI consciousness is certainly fun to talk about, but I find it largely unfounded. See From Ships to Silicon: Personhood and Evidence in the Age of AI. The real existential threat is not a sentient machine, but human users and over-delegation to AI, including critical “kill decisions.” As Jensen Huang (NVIDIA) aptly put it, we must keep a human in the loop to prevent AI from self-evolving “out in the wild” without oversight. Jensen Huang’s Life and Company – NVIDIA (Dec. 2023).
Conclusion
The “Curiosity Index” provides a rare look into the collective mind of a society in transition. It shows us that while the experts are looking at the horizon, the public is still trying to find its footing on the ground. My goal remains unchanged: to lead you through the “jargon fog” and past the conceptual hurdles of the present so that you are prepared for the “what’s next.” Whether you are a lawyer verifying an AI-generated brief or a professional worried about your role, remember that the most powerful tool in this new era isn’t the AI itself, it’s your ability to ask the right questions and maintain your place as the “human in the loop.”
Ralph Losey Copyright 2026 – All Rights Reserved. Originally published on edrm.net.
Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM’s GAI and LLM Policy.
