Not premature. Making sure that children’s emotional and mental health are protected and that safeguards are in place in all aspects of their education is something tech companies must respect. We have a habit of letting new tech run amok and putting the tech back in the bottle just never seems to work.
The robot company is looking to make money first and foremost. Caring about the educational, emotional, and social needs of children cannot be uppermost in their mind, because otherwise they would not be trying to sell this thing.
The inability of Warren County Republican leadership to adjust to basic, common sense ethical standards would be comical if it wasn’t pathetic.
I’d love it if a Republican could define nepotism for me. A Party leader in elected office is the danger of nepotism defined. The ethics board is correct “ …it is obvious that holding these positions simultaneously provides the opportunity to make decisions that benefit that person and his group/family/tribe…” Nepotism.
Republicans leaders don’t seem to understand, or purposely ignore rules of ethical behavior. Are they not smart enough to understand unethical behavior? Or are they apathetic to it? Or both? I can’t make that judgement because there is no option that reflects well on their character - and I wouldn’t want to impugn their character. I leave that to them. They seem to be both good at it, and uncaring of it being done in their name.
These are people who endorse the Trump crime family. Nepotism at the very top. That is who the current Republican Party are.
Is this dual role structurally incompatible with impartial governance? A political party is made up of like‑minded people, while a town is made up of everyone — including those who may be at odds with the party in control. A party chair is obligated to advance a faction, but a Town Board member must represent the entire community, not just a slice of it. Even without wrongdoing, those conflicting loyalties inevitably point in opposite directions, creating an unavoidable appearance of bias and undermining public confidence — except, of course, among those who share the same party bias and may not see the conflict at all.
If we take that a step further and a step away from politics toward governance, we have a structural conflict built into the Supervisor system of representation where town supervisors are elected to oversee the town and collect a paycheck for that job, but also get a completely separate job with the county and an additional paycheck representing people in the county. 9 of the 20 county supervisors are elected directly to the county supervisor position without the town paycheck and town responsibilities.
People who support the supervisor system fail to understand the systemic conflict of interest along with the ethical incompatibility
The thought of having a humanoid robot engaging directly with kids in the classroom, answering their questions and presumably providing some form of "emotional" support through its human-like facial and body language is chilling and ought to make us all pause. We are already all too aware of the high incidence of faulty information and "hallucination" conveyed by AI when we ask even simple questions of it. Far more chilling, we hear in the news of various horrors that are the result of AI inquiries by kids, including help with committing school shootings and planning for suicide. How much more scary is the thought of such negative influence coming from the "mouth" of a machine in the guise of a human being! So the reaction here is entirely understandable.
But, while I would take a back seat to no one in wanting to respond effectively to address legitimate concerns and to prevent premature engagement with such novel technologies, I am mindful that the reaction to new technologies is often to recoil at first, only to adapt after time. That has been true for perhaps each of the biggest technological leaps humans have historically made, since at least the invention of the printing press and including --among many others-- the development of the motor car. There might come a time when, with guardrails and seatbelts, so to speak, we are more comfortable with robots interacting with our kids. Some brilliant young teachers might find methods to use these tools to engage disaffected students in learning and thinking, in ways we can only speculate about at this point. The tool might be harnessed and constrained, and be made useful in ways we all might appreciate and agree are safe and appropriate. "Might": it is not utterly unthinkable.
So the question for me is how to constrain the technology at this point so that the appropriate experimentation, thought, checks, and debate can take place over time. I have wondered whether a multi-year moratorium might not be the better course than a statutory prohibition. But statutes can be repealed, so the issue would be more procedural: do we want the door to open automatically after a moratorium, or only after further legislative consideration via repeal, if and when opening the door appears to us to be the better course? Given the potential political power and influence of the uber-wealthy AI companies (at least in this time before their bubble bursts), I have come around to the view that a statutory prohibition now, with its higher hurdle of a possible repeal if and when we change our minds, is probably the better and safer course.
But I would urge caution about the utter closing of our minds to this daunting technology. There will surely come forward bright young teachers; and there will undoubtedly be disaffected kids who are more open to engaging with a robot who presses them to think more than to a human being who does so; and we may indeed develop strong guardrails and seatbelts. We are foolish if we don't learn from history that closing our minds to new technologies seldom causes them to disappear. And, even more troublingly, such mind-closing often leaves us less well-defended against the flaws and dangers of frightening new technologies, as a consequence of our not thinking hard about how we might take effective steps to insure that we are indeed master those technologies -- and thereby to avoid the reverse.
You have given us a lot to think about. New technologies have a way of seeming great at the time, but the harms don’t become evident sometimes for generations, your example of the motor car being case in point. We humans do not have a great track record of really thinking things through before we jump on a bandwagon, though. I do not trust the big tech companies to have the best interests of humanity at heart, let alone children. Any robot like that in school would have to have a trained, trusted human watching over it at all times to ensure it is not doing more harm than good, which makes me think why spend money on a robot too?
I agree with pretty much all you say. I am just suggesting that we leave the door ajar and our minds active on the issues raised by new technology. As for big tech companies having the best interests of humanity, and particularly of children, at "heart" -- well, not a lot of corporations in the US do, it seems to me. That is a consequence, in part, of corporate structuring, and one which could be at least ameliorated by state law. And it doesn't require socialism to do it. Other countries require that voting seats on boards be assigned to stakeholders other than just shareholders and management-adjacent types (stakeholders such as workers and presumably consumers). Along those lines, by the way, states can (and some actually do) require that corporations chartered by them not participate in political activities, effectively nullifying Citizens United.
Thank you for confronting the board so bravely, Ken. Let's spread the word that we need to vote all of them out. Given the high level of frustration many of us feel every day about what is going on in Washington DC, at least we can do something to end the influence of dishonest/complacent politicians here at home. VOTE 💙!
60 Minutes leak ............ It should be hilarious that the mopes running CBS News and 60 Minutes have nearly everything they say or write "in confidence" immediately leaked to the media. Sadly, it simply points to their complete incompetence, ignorance and lack of qualifications because they don't even realize there still are real professionals on board -- in front and behind the cameras -- that want their MAGA-free independence to compile factual, honest and revealing stories. One would think the skunks running the news division and 60 Minutes would limit their words and written communications with staff to rallying the troops and lifting morale. Like I said, hilarious!
Congratulations to Prof. Cobb and Columbia for seeing a golden opportunity in an otherwise bleak situation. Good for journalism, good for the university, good for Americans in need of objective information, and good for these two individuals who are freer to pursue the 'story,' wherever it may lead.
To make an ethical decision about no conflict of interest and then enacting that into policy seems a simple decision of right vs. wrong.Just chose which position you're going to have. I almost feel a kind of shame for our good town that this remains unresolved, the microcosm sadly mirroring the macrocosm as they say.
I once again emailed every member of the Board asking them why the Board has not drafted an amendment to the Town Code that would prohibit a Town Board member from being a political officer at the same time as their Town Board term of office, as per the recommendation of the Ethics Board. I heard from Rachel Hajos, who said that John Strough was writing a response so she'd leave it to him. I heard from Tim McNulty, who said that he believed that ethics laws should address actual conflicts of interest and misuse of public office. He said that the proposed amendment would infringe on First Amendment rights, and he also reiterated a point that he made in his response to me last year, which was that it wasn't against the law to hold both positions simultaneously. I then suggested that, since the Ethics Board's ruling stated that the Board should clarify the Town Code on this matter but didn't say they should amend it to say that it's prohibited, perhaps the Board should consider amending the Town Code to say that holding both positions simultaneously is permissible. In so doing, it would put him and others beyond reproach. I was curious to see what his response would be. He said he'd never thought of that and that it was worth considering. It'll be interesting to see if the Board does anything with this issue; I'll be surprised if they do. P.S. The other Board members haven't responded.
Not premature. Making sure that children’s emotional and mental health are protected and that safeguards are in place in all aspects of their education is something tech companies must respect. We have a habit of letting new tech run amok and putting the tech back in the bottle just never seems to work.
Right? Why would we replace humans with unaccountable robots?
Log the steps that were taken to reach the end. A path to accountable
The robot company is looking to make money first and foremost. Caring about the educational, emotional, and social needs of children cannot be uppermost in their mind, because otherwise they would not be trying to sell this thing.
Agreed but we need to stand up to them or they will just keep running roughshod over us.
The inability of Warren County Republican leadership to adjust to basic, common sense ethical standards would be comical if it wasn’t pathetic.
I’d love it if a Republican could define nepotism for me. A Party leader in elected office is the danger of nepotism defined. The ethics board is correct “ …it is obvious that holding these positions simultaneously provides the opportunity to make decisions that benefit that person and his group/family/tribe…” Nepotism.
Republicans leaders don’t seem to understand, or purposely ignore rules of ethical behavior. Are they not smart enough to understand unethical behavior? Or are they apathetic to it? Or both? I can’t make that judgement because there is no option that reflects well on their character - and I wouldn’t want to impugn their character. I leave that to them. They seem to be both good at it, and uncaring of it being done in their name.
These are people who endorse the Trump crime family. Nepotism at the very top. That is who the current Republican Party are.
They seem to believe that they have to break the law to be unethical.
They must literally have no shame, because if someone gave me that speech in public like that, I would be red faced and squirming in shame.
It didn't seem to bother them.
Is this dual role structurally incompatible with impartial governance? A political party is made up of like‑minded people, while a town is made up of everyone — including those who may be at odds with the party in control. A party chair is obligated to advance a faction, but a Town Board member must represent the entire community, not just a slice of it. Even without wrongdoing, those conflicting loyalties inevitably point in opposite directions, creating an unavoidable appearance of bias and undermining public confidence — except, of course, among those who share the same party bias and may not see the conflict at all.
That’s my two cents, bias included.
100%
If we take that a step further and a step away from politics toward governance, we have a structural conflict built into the Supervisor system of representation where town supervisors are elected to oversee the town and collect a paycheck for that job, but also get a completely separate job with the county and an additional paycheck representing people in the county. 9 of the 20 county supervisors are elected directly to the county supervisor position without the town paycheck and town responsibilities.
People who support the supervisor system fail to understand the systemic conflict of interest along with the ethical incompatibility
Thank you for bringing this to our attention!
from your lips to God's ears!
Congrats to one of the quiet good ones, Greg Brownell! So deserving of his induction into the Softball Hall of Fame!!
Double the congrats for me! Hardest working person in a sports business of many hard working people.
Greg Brownell is the best. Humble. Hard-working. Non-toxic. Kind. Nice to see his work honored. He and Greg Luckenbaugh were a joy to work with.
The thought of having a humanoid robot engaging directly with kids in the classroom, answering their questions and presumably providing some form of "emotional" support through its human-like facial and body language is chilling and ought to make us all pause. We are already all too aware of the high incidence of faulty information and "hallucination" conveyed by AI when we ask even simple questions of it. Far more chilling, we hear in the news of various horrors that are the result of AI inquiries by kids, including help with committing school shootings and planning for suicide. How much more scary is the thought of such negative influence coming from the "mouth" of a machine in the guise of a human being! So the reaction here is entirely understandable.
But, while I would take a back seat to no one in wanting to respond effectively to address legitimate concerns and to prevent premature engagement with such novel technologies, I am mindful that the reaction to new technologies is often to recoil at first, only to adapt after time. That has been true for perhaps each of the biggest technological leaps humans have historically made, since at least the invention of the printing press and including --among many others-- the development of the motor car. There might come a time when, with guardrails and seatbelts, so to speak, we are more comfortable with robots interacting with our kids. Some brilliant young teachers might find methods to use these tools to engage disaffected students in learning and thinking, in ways we can only speculate about at this point. The tool might be harnessed and constrained, and be made useful in ways we all might appreciate and agree are safe and appropriate. "Might": it is not utterly unthinkable.
So the question for me is how to constrain the technology at this point so that the appropriate experimentation, thought, checks, and debate can take place over time. I have wondered whether a multi-year moratorium might not be the better course than a statutory prohibition. But statutes can be repealed, so the issue would be more procedural: do we want the door to open automatically after a moratorium, or only after further legislative consideration via repeal, if and when opening the door appears to us to be the better course? Given the potential political power and influence of the uber-wealthy AI companies (at least in this time before their bubble bursts), I have come around to the view that a statutory prohibition now, with its higher hurdle of a possible repeal if and when we change our minds, is probably the better and safer course.
But I would urge caution about the utter closing of our minds to this daunting technology. There will surely come forward bright young teachers; and there will undoubtedly be disaffected kids who are more open to engaging with a robot who presses them to think more than to a human being who does so; and we may indeed develop strong guardrails and seatbelts. We are foolish if we don't learn from history that closing our minds to new technologies seldom causes them to disappear. And, even more troublingly, such mind-closing often leaves us less well-defended against the flaws and dangers of frightening new technologies, as a consequence of our not thinking hard about how we might take effective steps to insure that we are indeed master those technologies -- and thereby to avoid the reverse.
You have given us a lot to think about. New technologies have a way of seeming great at the time, but the harms don’t become evident sometimes for generations, your example of the motor car being case in point. We humans do not have a great track record of really thinking things through before we jump on a bandwagon, though. I do not trust the big tech companies to have the best interests of humanity at heart, let alone children. Any robot like that in school would have to have a trained, trusted human watching over it at all times to ensure it is not doing more harm than good, which makes me think why spend money on a robot too?
I agree with pretty much all you say. I am just suggesting that we leave the door ajar and our minds active on the issues raised by new technology. As for big tech companies having the best interests of humanity, and particularly of children, at "heart" -- well, not a lot of corporations in the US do, it seems to me. That is a consequence, in part, of corporate structuring, and one which could be at least ameliorated by state law. And it doesn't require socialism to do it. Other countries require that voting seats on boards be assigned to stakeholders other than just shareholders and management-adjacent types (stakeholders such as workers and presumably consumers). Along those lines, by the way, states can (and some actually do) require that corporations chartered by them not participate in political activities, effectively nullifying Citizens United.
Thank you for confronting the board so bravely, Ken. Let's spread the word that we need to vote all of them out. Given the high level of frustration many of us feel every day about what is going on in Washington DC, at least we can do something to end the influence of dishonest/complacent politicians here at home. VOTE 💙!
60 Minutes leak ............ It should be hilarious that the mopes running CBS News and 60 Minutes have nearly everything they say or write "in confidence" immediately leaked to the media. Sadly, it simply points to their complete incompetence, ignorance and lack of qualifications because they don't even realize there still are real professionals on board -- in front and behind the cameras -- that want their MAGA-free independence to compile factual, honest and revealing stories. One would think the skunks running the news division and 60 Minutes would limit their words and written communications with staff to rallying the troops and lifting morale. Like I said, hilarious!
Right? Don’t leak to the press…aren’t THEY the press too???
Yes! Kind of ironic.
Congratulations to Prof. Cobb and Columbia for seeing a golden opportunity in an otherwise bleak situation. Good for journalism, good for the university, good for Americans in need of objective information, and good for these two individuals who are freer to pursue the 'story,' wherever it may lead.
I just watched a documentary called "Still Human" - won a Nobel Prize.
If you haven't seen it, you should. Certainly makes clear just how much we all should appreciate what we have and where we live.
I imagine most of us dont pay much attention to what has been and is going on in Sudan. We should.
To make an ethical decision about no conflict of interest and then enacting that into policy seems a simple decision of right vs. wrong.Just chose which position you're going to have. I almost feel a kind of shame for our good town that this remains unresolved, the microcosm sadly mirroring the macrocosm as they say.
I once again emailed every member of the Board asking them why the Board has not drafted an amendment to the Town Code that would prohibit a Town Board member from being a political officer at the same time as their Town Board term of office, as per the recommendation of the Ethics Board. I heard from Rachel Hajos, who said that John Strough was writing a response so she'd leave it to him. I heard from Tim McNulty, who said that he believed that ethics laws should address actual conflicts of interest and misuse of public office. He said that the proposed amendment would infringe on First Amendment rights, and he also reiterated a point that he made in his response to me last year, which was that it wasn't against the law to hold both positions simultaneously. I then suggested that, since the Ethics Board's ruling stated that the Board should clarify the Town Code on this matter but didn't say they should amend it to say that it's prohibited, perhaps the Board should consider amending the Town Code to say that holding both positions simultaneously is permissible. In so doing, it would put him and others beyond reproach. I was curious to see what his response would be. He said he'd never thought of that and that it was worth considering. It'll be interesting to see if the Board does anything with this issue; I'll be surprised if they do. P.S. The other Board members haven't responded.