>> COMING UP NEXT, DEMOCRATS WANT TO ELIMINATE INCOME TAXES FOR THE WORKING CLASS, IS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE HELPING OR HURTING THE COLLEGE CLASSROOM, AND, GOOD CAUSE EVICTIONS, ARE THEY GOOD FOR UPSTATE NEW YORK?

STAY TUNED, FOR "IVORY TOWER".

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO "IVORY TOWER".

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

I'M NINA MOORE OF COLGATE UNIVERSITY.

THE PROFESSORS AROUND THE TABLE TONIGHT ARE TARA ROSS OF ONONDAGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE CHAD SPARBER OF COLGATE UNIVERSITY ANIRBAN ACHARYA OF LEMOYNE COLLEGE AND JENNIFER STROMER-GALLEY OF SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY Dmsz are developing plans to win back the White House.

And at the heart of those plans, tax breaks for millions and tax hikes for the wealthy.

ONE PROPOSAL CALLS FOR ELIMINATING FEDERAL INCOME TAXES ALTOGETHER FOR THOSE WHO MAKE LESS THAN $46,000 A YEAR.

AS ONE SENATOR PUT IT, DEMOCRATS WANT TO SIGNAL TO VOTERS THAT THEY STAND FOR WORKING PEOPLE.

BUT THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE WASHINGTON POST SAYS THAT THE TAX PLANS THAT THEY'VE PUT FORTH, DON'T GET TO THE ROOT OF THE MONEY PROBLEMS OF WORKING FAMILIES.

So, Chad, what do you think about the Washington Post ox objections?

Do you agree they don't get to the root of the problem?

>> I think it's important to recognize that the economists raise the same objections that the Washington Post did about a month ago and it starts with, you know, if you look at the top 1% of U.S.

income earners, they earn 22% of country's income.

But they pay 40% of federal taxes.

And by comparison, in Europe, the value added tax, gives it a much broader tax base.

And even if you think that the rich aren't paying their fair share, whatever that means YOU CANS YOU HAVE THE ADDED PIECE ABOUT TAXING THE RICH CAN HURT INVESTMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION SO COLLECTIVELY, THESE ISSUES THAT THE POST ARE RAISING, THEY'RE PRETTY REAL.

>> OKAY, BUT WHAT ABOUT SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS' WEALTH TAX.

I MEAN WE'VE HEARD TIME AND AGAIN THAT THE WEALTH HASN'T PAID THEIR FAIR SHARE AND IF THEY'RE AT 40% NOW AND WE ARE TALKING BILLIONAIRES, WHY NOT INCREASE THAT?

>> THE WEALTH TAX IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT PROBLEM.

AND THAT IS THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

IF YOU GO JUST BACK TO LAST JULY, COLUMBIA LAW RELEASED A PAPER THAT SAID LOOK, THE WEALTH TAX IS A DIRECT TAX, WHICH MEANS IT HAS TO HAVE PROPORTIONALITY WHICH MEANS THAT THE PROPORTION OF THE REVENUES THAT ARE RECEIVED FROM IT HAVE TO EQUAL THE PROPORTION OF THE POPULATION.

AND IF SOME STATES ARE WEALTHIER THAN HER TOES, IT VIOLATES THAT PRINCIPLE, IT CLEARLY VIOLATES THE ORIGINALIST INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

IF YOU THINK THAT TRUMP'S TAX LAWS, THE TARIFFS WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THIS IS SUPER UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

BOTTOM LINE.

IT'S A WASTE OF TIME.

NOT GOING TO GO ANYWHERE.

>> THAT'S AN ORIGINALIST PERSPECTIVE AND THE QUESTION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES PROO PORTIONALITY IS ALSO UP IN THE AIR.

WHAT DO YOU THINK, ANIRBAN, ABOUT THE IDEA THAT THE WEALTH TAX IS PROBLEMATIC?

SET ASIDE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S LEGAL.

>> FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO GIVE CERTAIN PERSPECTIVE.

WHENEVER WE TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS, WE KIND OF UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE POOR GET A LOT MORE MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT THAN THE RICH DOES.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT MATTHEW DESMOND'S WONDERFUL WORK, PRINCE TON PROFESSOR, "BOFORT BY AMERICA" BOOK, HE SHOWED THE TOP 20% OF INCOME EARNERS IN THIS COUNTRY GETS $35,000 A YEAR FROM GOVERNMENT INCLUDING TAX BEN ITS, SOCIAL INSURANCE, FINANCIAL AID FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, WHEREAS FAMILIES OF THE BOTTOM 20% OF THE INCOME DISTRIBUTION ONLY GET 25,000 A YEAR.

SO IT IS NOT THAT JUST THE POOR IS GETTING ALL THIS MONEY.

IT'S LOP SIDED.

THE TOP 20% OF THE INCOME EARNERS IN THE UNITED STATES GET WAY FOR SUBSIDIES FROM THE GOVERNMENT THAN THE POOR 20%.

SO LET'S PUT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE FIRST.

I ALSO THINK THAT IF THE RICH DOESN'T HAVE TO PAY MORE, IF THEY JUST PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO PAY, INSTEAD OF CHEATING AND HIDING THEIR TAXES.

AND AGAIN THESE ARE ECONOMIC INCENTIVES THE RICH HAVE AND THE GOVERNMENT MAY HAVE TO SPEND MONEY TO RECOVER.

HERE IS NICE DATA HERE.

IT WOULD TAKE ABOUT $177 BILLION A YEAR TO LIFT EVERYONE OUT OF OFFICIAL POVERTY LINE IN THE U.S.

A RECENT STUDY SHOWING THAT THAT COLLECTING ALL THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX FROM THE TOP 1% WOULD COME TO $175 MILLION OR MORE-- $1 P-- $175 BILLION OR MORE.

LET'S TRY TO TAX THE RICH AND THEN FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS IN THE COURT.

>> THROW IT AT THE WALL AND SEE WHAT STICKS?

>> LIKE THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SO WHY SNOT I'M GOING TO OFFER A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.

I'M WITH CHAD.

I DON'T THINK THE WEALTH TAX ULTIMATELY HAS LEGS.

BUT THERE IS A LOT OF WEALTH IN THE MARKETS.

SO A LOT OF THE WEALTH FROM MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES IS IN THE STOCKS THAT THEY OWN THAT THEY ARE NOT YET PAYING TAXES ON BECAUSE IT'S UNREALIZED GAINS.

I DO THINK THERE ARE WAYS TO LOOK AT THE WEALTH THAT COMES FROM THE STOCKS THAT MANY C.E.O.S AND OTHER WEALTH EMILION AIRS AND BILLIONAIRES HAVE AND THINK ABOUT MAYBE TAXING THAT UNREALIZED GAIN, WHICH CURRENTLY IS NOT TAXED.

YOU ONLY GET TAXED AND IT'S ROUGHLY 15 TO 20%, MUCH LESS THAN THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX RATE IF THEY WERE ACTUALLY PAYING INCOME TAX.

SO I THINK THERE IS A POCKET THAT NEEDS A LITTLE BIT OF LOOK.

>> YEAH, IT SEEMS LIKE THE WAY DEMOCRATS ARE APPROACHING THIS, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO HAVE SOME SORT OF TAX INCREASE IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE FOR THE TAX BREAKS.

SO, TARA, WHERE ARE YOU IN THIS?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, I'M THRILLED THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO IMPROVE THE ECONOMIC SITUATION FOR THE WORKING CLASS AND MIDDLE-CLASS.

BUT ALL OF THE PLANS SEEM VERY UNREALISTIC.

AND FOR ME, I LOOK AT IT FROM SORT OF A POLITICAL STANDPOINT IN THE SENSE THAT THIS IS PIE IN THE SKY.

IT'S PANDERING TO THE PUBLIC.

AND, AS THE ARTICLE SAID, IT DOESN'T REALLY GET AT THE PROBLEM, BUT THE OTHER PROBLEM IS IT ONCE AGAIN TAKES THE DEMOCRATS BACK TO, OKAY, YOU, AS A PARTY, HAVE NOT SAT DOWN AND LOOKED REALISTICALLY AT WHERE THE PROBLEMS ARE, NOR HAVE YOU, AS A PARTY, DECIDED, OKAY, THIS IS A PLAN THAT IS POTENTIALLY WORKABLE.

THIS IS A PLAN THAT IS-- LET'S MAKE IT HARD FOR THE-- IT'S NOT GOING TO BE EVERYTHING THE REPUBLICANS WANT BUT LET'S MAKE IT HARD FOR THEM TO DISMISS IT.

ALL OF THESE PLANS ARE DISMISSIBLE.

>> IT IS POP POP LIFT GRANDSTANDING.

>> CAN I INTERRUPT YOU AND FOLLOW UP AUTO THE ONE POINT.

>> I GUESS SO.

>> THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ARE MODERATOR.

TRUMP'S GIMMICKY APPROACH OF NO TAXES ON CHIPS, ON SENIOR CITIZENS, ON OVERTIME PAY.

THAT SEEMED TO WORK.

SO EVEN IF THIS IS GIMMICKY AND WON'T WORK, IT WORKED FOR TRUMP.

>> YES.

>> ELECTORALLY.

>> POPULISM WORKS TO GET HIM ELECTED DOESN'T MEAN IT'S GOOD POLICY.

THAT'S WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN.

JENNY'S POINT ABOUT TAXING UNREALIZED GAINS, THAT IS GOING TO BE A WEALTH TAX THAT DOESN'T PASS CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER, LEAST WITH THIS SUPREME COURT.

I THINK IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR EFFECTIVE POLICY THAT WOULD INCREASE FAIRNESS, NUMBER ONE, YOU GOT TO ELIMINATE THE CAP ON SOCIAL SECURITY TAX.

RIGHT NOW THAT'S AT $158,000 A YEAR-- $185,000 A YEAR.

THE SECOND, RELATED TO THIS UNREALIZED GAIN THING IS YOU HAVE TO ELIMINATE THE RESETTING OF THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX AT THE TIME OF DEATH.

EFFECTIVELY THIS IS WHAT ALLOWS BILLIONAIRES TO HOLD LOTS OF WEALTH, BORROW AGAINST THAT WEALTH TO FUND THEIR SPENDING, DIE WITHOUT PAYING ANY TAXES AT ALL.

GET RID OF IT FOR FAIRNESS BUT EVEN IF YOU DO THAT, THE REVENUES THAT COME FROM THAT ARE ABOUT 0.1% OF G.D.P.

THAT'S NOT ENOUGH.

>> IT IS NOT ENOUGH.

>> BUT IT IS FAIR.

>> IF I COULD ASK A QUESTION, JENNY ABOUT THE MESSAGING.

HOW DOES ONE MESSAGE WHAT CHAD JUST SAID TO THE AVERAGE VOTER?

HOW DOES THAT PLAY OUT?

>> FOR SURE.

THE COMPLEXITY OF OUR TAX POLICY IS A BIT MIND BOGGLING AND I THINK WE SAW HARRIS WHEN SHE WAS RUNNING LAST IN 24 IN THE LAST ELECTION, SHE HAD A LAUNDRY LIST OF LITTLE THINGS.

AND I DEFINITELY THINK THE DEMOCRATS NEED TO THINK ABOUT A CLEAR, SIMPLE MESSAGE THAT ACTUALLY RESONATES WITH THE PUBLIC.

AND THAT'S BEEN THEIR CHALLENGE.

I AGREE WITH YOU TARA 100%.

>> THEY HAVE A LITTLE TIME TO DO THAT.

>> NOT MUCH.

>> SHIFTING GEARS NOW.

A GROWING NUMBER OF STATES OF CITIES IN NEW YORK STATE ARE ADOPTING THEIR OWN LOCAL VERSION OF THE STATE'S GOOD CAUSE EVICTION LAW.

THE LAW PROTECTS TENANTS FROM UNREASONABLE RENT INCREASES AND FROM UNJUST EVICTIONS.

THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS, EXEMPTIONS, AND SUCH.

BUT, GENERALLY, LANDLORDS MUST NOW HAVE ‘GOOD CAUSE' FOR RENT INCREASES AND EVICTIONS.

CITIES GET TO CHOOSE WHETHER TO OPT-IN.

SO FAR, AS MANY AS 26 CITIES IN NEW YORK HAVE OPTED IN, INCLUDING HERE IN UPSTATE.

BINGHAMTON, ITHACA, TROY.

HOWEVER, SOME HAVE NOT, SUCH AS SYRACUSE, WHICH TRIED, BUT FAILED.

IS SYRACUSE MISSING AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROTECT TENANTS BY NOT PASSING THE LAW?

>> I ABSOLUTELY THINK THAT SYRACUSE IS MISSING AN OPPORTUNITY, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU SEE THE DATA.

60% OF RESIDENTS IN SYRACUSE LIVE IN RENTED HOMES.

WHICH IS QUITE A LARGE NUMBER, RIGHT?

NOW, LET ME LOOK AT SOME OF THE-- TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, BUT YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE SOME GOOD CAUSE EVICTION POINTS?

TENANTS FAILURE TO PAY RENT.

TENANTS VIOLATION OF HOUSING AGREEMENTS, YOU KNOW, IF THE LANDLORD PLANS TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY OR TAKE IT OFF THE MARKET.

THESE ARE ALL-- >> CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

>> RIGHT, CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.

ORDERS FOR THE CITY OR THE STATE OR AGENCY TO EVACUATE.

THESE ARE SENSIBLE LAWS.

ONE THING IS THAT THE SMALL LANDLORD ASPECT, LIKE IN NEW YORK CITY, THE RULE IS 10 RENTAL PROPERTIES MAKES A SMALL LANDLORD.

HERE THEY'RE SAYING IF YOU HAVE ONE RENTAL PROPERTY, YOU WILL BE CONSIDERED SMALL LANDLORD.

AND THAT MIGHT BE A STICKING POINT.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I DO THINK THIS PROTECTS THE LANDLORDS ALSO AND THE TENANTS.

IT BECOMES LIKE A FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF RIGHTS, IF YOU WILL, BETWEEN THE TENANT AND THE LANDLORD.

AND I DO THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE PASSED IN SYRACUSE.

>> FOLLOWING UP ON YOUR POINT ABOUT THE ONE UNIT, DO YOU WORRY THAT THAT RULE WOULD DISCOURAGE FOLKS FROM OFFERING RENTAL UNITS WHEN THEY HAVE JUST ONE?

OR I'M SORRY, IF THEY HAVE TWO OR THREE?

AND THAT DOESN'T HELP THE HOUSING CRISIS, RIGHT?

>> I DO THINK ONE IS A LITTLE LESS HERE.

AND THERE MIGHT BE INCENTIVES.

IF YOUR LANDLORD OWNS ONE HOUSE, YOU HAVE AT SOME POINT MOVED ON AND WANT TO RENT IT OUT.

THE CAP CAN BE INCREASED A LITTLE BIT BUT I THINK VERY LARGE LANDLORDS DO NOT HAVE THE KIND OF SAME-- THEY HAVE MUCH MORE POWER THAN SMALLER LANDLORDS, IN ORDER TO CHANGE RENT AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

>> I WANT TO DISAGREE WITH YOU IN JUST ONE POINT; THAT THIS PROTECTS BOTH THE LANDLORD AND THE TENANT EQUALLY.

I THINK THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT WHEN THERE IS A PROBLEM, AND THE LANDLORD DOES WANT TO DO AN EVICTION, ALL OF IT REALLY SORT OF RESTS ON THE LANDLORD TO PROVE THAT, UNDER THIS PLAN, THAT THERE WAS GOOD CAUSE.

SO THE LANDLORD WOULD HAVE TO BE THE ONE TO FILE THE PAPER WORK, GET THE ATTORNEY, YOU KNOW, AND DO ALL OF THAT TO GET THE TENANT OUT.

WHEREAS TYPICALLY, AND I'M NOT SAYING IT'S ALWAYS EASY TO ACCESS THESE THINGS.

BUT TYPICALLY THERE ARE PRO BONO ATTORNEYS OR THERE IS A LEGAL SYSTEM SET UP TO HELP TENANTS, WHEREAS THERE ISN'T FOR THE LANDLORD.

AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE SMALL LANDLORD, THAT IS THE TYPE OF LANDLORD WHO TYPICALLY WOULD HAVE LESS FUNDING TO DO THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE FOR A GOOD CAUSE EVICTION.

>> BUT THE SMALL LANDLORDS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE PARTICULAR LAW.

>> DEPENDING UPON HOW YOU DEFINE WHAT CONSTITUTES SMALL LANDLORD.

>> ANYTHING MORE THAN ONE WOULD NOT BE A SMALL LANDLORD.

>> I THINK YOU ARE BURYING THE LEAD.

THE LANDLORDS ARE WORRIED ABOUT RENT INCREASES.

IT REEKS OF RENT CONTROL.

WHETHER YOU ARE RIGHT OR LEFT OF CENTER, ECONOMISTS ARE ALMOST UNIVERSALLY AGAINST.

WHY WOULD ANYBODY INVEST IN NEW HOUSING STOCK IF YOU CAN INVEST MONEY IN THE STOCK MARKET, WHICH OFFERS LESS RISKY RETURNS AND AT HIGHER RATES OF RETURN.

ONE LIMITED POTENTIAL.

NOW THE PROBLEM THAT "THE NEW YORK TIMES" HAD IDENTIFIED, KIND OF IN THE WAKE OF THE MAMDANI ELECTION IS THAT THERE IS A TENSION BETWEEN SHORT RUN AND LONG RUN SOLUTIONS.

SO THE BEST SOLUTION FOR, YOU KNOW, GETTING RID OF THESE RISING HOUSING COSTS IS TO INCREASE THE SUPPLY.

BUT THAT TAKES TIME AND IT DOESN'T DO MUCH TO ADDRESS THE IMMEDIATE STRESSES THAT SOME RENTERS ARE FACING.

>> YEAH, ONE OF THE REACTIONS I HAD IS THAT PERHAPS THIS INCENTIVIZES 10% INCREASES EVERY YEAR BECAUSE IT ALLOWS THOSE INCREASES.

AND SO YOU ARE NOT THINKING THAT'S A CONCERN, CHAD?

>> WELL, THAT'S AN INTERESTING THOUGHT.

I MEAN YOU STILL HAVE MARKET PRINCIPLES THAT YOU GOT TO-- IF YOU RAISE THE RENT 10% AND THEY DON'T PAY, DOES IT BECOME AN EMPTY UNIT AND THEN YOU ARE AT A LOSS THERE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, EFFECTIVELY WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS TRY TO INCENTIVIZE MORE HOUSING.

AND PRICE CONTROLS DON'T DO THAT.

>> AND ON THE FLIP SIDE, I THINK FOR RENTERS, YOU KNOW, AS A RENTER, YOU ARE ALWAYS IN A SLIGHTLY PRECARIOUS PLACE BECAUSE YOU DON'T OWN THE PROPERTY AND THE LANDLORD CAN MAKE DRASTIC INCREASES POTENTIALLY THAT YOU NO LONGER CAN AFFORD BECAUSE YOUR BUDGET ONLY ALLOWS FOR A TWO OR 3% INCREASE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU RECEIVED AS YOUR INCREASE WHEN YOU GOT YOUR BONUS AT THE END OF THE CALENDAR YEAR.

SO THERE IS, I THINK-- AND I GREW UP AS THE KID OF A MOM, SINGLE MOM WHO RENTED.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE MOVED ALMOST EVERY YEAR, IN PART BECAUSE WE WERE FACING INCREASES THAT MY MOTHER COULD NOT AFFORD.

SO YOU CREATE INSTABILITY.

THE HOUSING STOCK IN SYRACUSE IS REALLY POOR.

THE QUALITY IS POOR, THE HEALTH ISSUES IN THESE PLACES ARE POOR.

SO, YOU KNOW, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WE NEED TO REALLY THINK CAREFUL CAREFULLY ABOUT WHAT THE OBLIGATIONS ARE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING THE BUSINESS OF BEING A LANDLORD AND ENSURING THAT THEY'RE PROVIDING A HEALTHY, SAFE AND SECURE ENVIRONMENT FOR THEIR PEOPLE.

>> YEAH, THAT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT.

SHIFTING GEARS.

DEPENDING ON WHOM YOU ASK, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE OR A.I.

IS EITHER GOOD FOR STUDENT LEARNING IN THE COLLEGE CLASSROOM OR IT'S THE END OF BRAINSTORMING AND CREATIVE THINKING IN THE CLASSROOM.

BUT WHETHER FOR GOOD OR BAD, A.I.

IS HERE TO STAY.

SOME 85% OF COLLEGE STUDENTS SAY THEY USE A.I.

TO HELP THEM STUDY AND COMPLETE ASSIGNMENTS.

MEANWHILE, SOME INSTRUCTORS CONSIDER A.I.

A VALUABLE TEACHING TOOL, WHILE OTHERS WORRY ABOUT ACADEMIC INTEGRITY, ALSO KNOWN AS CHOATEING.

-- CHEATING.

TARA, WHERE ARE YOU ON THE SPECTRUM?

HOW HAS A.I.

IMPACTED YOUR PEDAGOGY?

>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THIS PAST YEAR, ON THE JOB, WE WERE REQUIRED TO COME UP WITH OUR A.I.

POLICY AND PUT IT ON A SYLLABI FOR THE FIRST TIME.

AND THE SYSTEM THAT WE HAPPEN TO USE IS THAT GREEN IS OH YES YOU CAN USE A.I.

TO RED YOU CAN NEVER USE A.I.

WELL, REALISTICALLY I SAY I'M IN THE RED.

I SAY NO.

BUT I'M ALSO VERY REALISTIC ABOUT THE FACT THAT, ON ESPECIALLY HOME WORK ASSIGNMENTS, IT IS PROBABLY BEING USED.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REALLY STRUCK ME WAS A QUOTE FROM A STUDY ABOUT A.I.

CALLED THE LEARNING NETWORK.

IT IS VERY SHORT QUOTE AND THIS IS FROM A STUDENT.

"IN MY OPINION, A.I.

IS SIMILAR TO A PAIN KILLER.

IT CAN BE HELPFUL AT FIRST BUT EVENTUALLY IT BECOMES A CRUTCH THAT YOU CAN'T REMOVE."

AND THAT REALLY STRUCK ME BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT IS HAPPENING.

AND I DON'T REALLY THINK WE CAN STOP IT.

SO WHERE I'M AT IS, IT'S THERE.

I DON'T LIKE IT.

BUT IT IS THERE.

SO SOMEONE HELP ME FIGURE OUT HOW BEST TO UTILIZE IT TO HELP STUDENTS BUT ALSO HAVE AN ABILITY TO DEAL WITH IT WHEN IT'S GONE TOO FAR.

>> YEAH.

>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGY, HUMAN BEINGS HAVE NEVER GIVEN UP AN OPPORTUNITY TO USE A TECHNOLOGY THAT WILL HAVE THEM DO LESS WORK.

SO THERE IS THIS QUOTE GOING ON, A.I.

IS GOOD BUT I WANT A.I.

TO DO THE WASHING MY DISHES AND I WANT TO DO POETRY RATHER THAN THE OTHER WAY AROUND, INSTEAD OF I DO DISHES AND IT DOES POETRY.

THERE IS A VERY GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN CERTAIN THINGS.

I'M TEACHING ECONOMICS THIS SEMESTER.

I TAUGHT MY STUDENTS HOW TO MAKE NICE GRAPHS WITH THE HELP OF A.I.

CO-PILOT WITH MICROSOFT.

BEFORE, IN ORDER TO DRAW THAT GRAPH, FIRST OF ALL IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO IT DO WITH THE MICROSOFT DRAW BUT NOW THEY CAN USE PROMPTS AND CREATE A GRAPH OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND, SHOW HOW THAT SUPPLY AND DEMAND CHANGES.

THAT WAS TREMENDOUSLY USEFUL FOR THEM, RIGHT?

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS AT THE LONGER TERM, THE STUDENTS WHO KIND OF HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT IF YOU ARE ECONOMIC COSTS RIGHT, YOUR ACCOUNTING PLUS OPPORTUNITY OF GOING TO COLLEGE IS 60 TO $70,000 A YEAR, WHEN YOU COME OUT INTO THE JOB MARKET, LIKE WHAT IS YOUR INCENTIVE OF JUST NOT LEARNING AND CONSTANTLY CHEATING THROUGH SCHOOL?

WILL THAT HELP YOU LONG-TERM IN THE LABOR MARKET?

I DOUBT THAT WILL HELP YOU.

SO I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A.I.

POLICY BUT THERE ARE GOOD THINGS THAT A STUDENT CAN DO WITH A.I.

TO ENHANCE THERE I LEARNING, BUT ALSO AN UNDERSTANDING THAT AM I HERE TO LEARN AND CRITICALLY THINK AND INCREASE MY SKILLS OR AM I HERE TO CHEAT?

I HEN THAT'S-- I MEAN THAT WILL DEPEND UPON THE STUDENT AT THE END OF THE DAY.

>> FOR SURE.

I TEACH A COURSE ON A.I.

AND IT'S ABOUT BASICALLY HELPING THE STUDENTS UNDERSTAND THE WAYS TO EFFECTIVELY USE A.I.

THAT CHALLENGES OF PROMPTING AND HOW TO PROMPT WELL, VERSUS POORLY.

THE SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS.

WE ARE MOVING INTO DEEP FAKES HERE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS, WHICH IS A VERY INTERESTING TOPIC.

BUT THE STUDENTS THEMSELVES, AT LEAST MINE, ARE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT EXACTLY THE CONVERSATION WE ARE HAVING.

THEY RECOGNIZE THAT THEY SEE THE TEMPTATION TO SHORT CIRCUIT THEIR OWN LEARNING FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE QUICK A WHILE RECOGNIZING THEY'RE ACTUALLY SHORT CIRCUITING.

THAT THEY'RE NOT GETTING THE BENEFIT THAT THEY ARE WILL FOR, THAT EXPENSE OF BEING A STUDENT.

AS A TEACHER, YOU KNOW, MY AIM IS TO ENSURE THAT THE STUDENTS ARE ABLE TO USE THE TOOL TO HELP THEM WITH THEIR CREATIVE ASPECTS BUT TO NOT BECOME A CRUTCH.

SO IF IT STARTS TO SHORT CIRCUIT HOW THEY UNDERSTAND OR LEARN OR MEMORIZE, THEN IT'S NO LONGER EFFECTIVE.

IT'S A CRUTCH.

>> SO I THINK TECHNOLOGY IS AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS AND THOSE WHO USE IT POORLY WILL BE NATURALLY SELECTED OUT OF A GOOD LABOR MARKET OPPORTUNITIES.

WHERE I WORRY THE MOST IS WHEN STUDENTS ARE USING IT FOR BRAINSTORMING.

THAT BOTHERS ME BUT THAT SPEAKS TO A LARGER TECHNOLOGY ISSUE WHERE THERE IS A LARGE LITERATURE ABOUT HOW BOREDOM IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR CREATIVITY.

AND KIDS AREN'T BORED ENOUGH ANYMORE BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEIR PHONE WITH THEM ALL THE TIME EVERYWHERE.

THERE IS A PHRASE ABOUT THE DEFAULT MODE NETWORK OF OUR BRAINS THAT WE GO INTO WHEN WE ARE BORED.

SO EFFECTIVELY I THINK PHONES HAVE KILLED THAT.

BUT A.I.

JUST THREW A LITTLE BIT MORE DIRT ON THE GRAVE.

>> YEAH, AND-- GO AHEAD.

>> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU.

ONE OF THE ARTICLES I READ TALKED ABOUT HOW THERE IS NOW-- I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU CALL IT-- BUT THEY'RE PROGRAMMING A.I.

SO THAT IT CAN HUMANIZE SO THAT STUDENTS WHO DIDN'T USE A.I.

ARE NOW USING A.I.

TO HUMANIZE THEIR WRITING SO PEOPLE DON'T THINK THEY USED A.I.

DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS?

I WAS FASCINATED.

>> FANTASTIC.

THIS IS ONE OF THE CHALLENGES, RIGHT?

THERE ARE SOME CUES WHEN YOU ARE OR DEALING WITH A.I.

AND SO, OF COURSE, THERE ARE PEEP TRYING TO DESIGN A.I.

THAT CAN THEN REMOVE THE A.I.NESS SO IT FEELS MORE HUMAN.

MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO ME.

>> MY GOODNESS.

WHERE ARE WE HEADED?

SORRY, WE ARE OUT OF TIME.

BUT I HAVE A FEELING, LIKE JENNY SAID, WE ARE GOING TO COME BACK TO THIS.

YOU ARE TEACHING A WHOLE CLASS ON IT.

NOW IT IS TIME FOR OUR GRADE BOOKS.

STARTING WITH FS AND YOUR F IN PARTICULAR.

>> MY F GOES TO OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE FRANK LA ROSE.

WHEN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DEMANDED ALL STATES TURN OVER THEIR VOTER REGISTRATION DATABASES, MOST STATES REFUSED TO TURN THEM OVER OR SAID THEY WOULD ONLY TURN OVER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION.

LAROSE DECIDED THAT NO, HE WOULD TURN OVER LITERALLY EVERYTHING IN THE VOTER REGISTRATION DATABASE, INCLUDING PERSONAL SENSITIVE INFORMATION.

NOW, HE DID THIS IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT NUMEROUS JUDGES HAVE DECIDED THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DIDN'T HAVE A GOOD REASON TO ASK FOR THIS.

AND THAT THIS WAS UNNECESSARY INFORMATION.

>> CHAD.

>> MY F GOES TO NEWS THAT THE U.S.

BORROWED $50 BILLION A WEEK FOR THE PAST FIVE MONTHS, INTEREST PAYMENTS ON THE DEBT ARE EXPECTED TO EXCEED $IS TRILLION THIS YEAR AND SURPASS $2 TRILLION BY 2036, THE DEFICIT TO G.D.P.

RAIRN YO' IS 5 TO 6%.

A BONUS A TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL BUDGET WHO SAID THIS CANNOT BE SUSTAINABLE.

WOULD EITHER PARTY PLEASE GIVE ME A CANDIDATE WHO TAKES BUDGETS SERIOUSLY.

>> F GOES TO THE RECENT ISLAMIC REMARKS BY TENNESSEE REPUBLICAN ANDY OGLES ON SOCIAL MEDIA SAYING MUSLIMS DON'T BELONG TO AMERICAN SOCIETY AND PLURALISM IS A LIE.

THIS FOLLOWS THE RECENTLY RISING TREND AMONG G.O.P.

LAWMAKERS WHO ARE MAKING SIMILAR UNCOUTH COMMENTARY ABOUT MUSLIMS THAT TEND TO STOKE SECTARIAN ANIMOSITY AND GUESS WHAT?

NONE OF THE REPUBLICANS SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THIS?

THEY'RE GOING ALONG WITH THIS.

>> JENNY.

>> MY F GOES TO GRAMMERLY, A POPULAR TOOL THAT HELPS PEOPLE WRITE CLEARLY AND CORRECTLY.

THEY'RE FACING A CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT BECAUSE THEY OFFERED AN A.I.

FEATURE THAT USED REAL WRITERS AND SCHOLARS NAMES AND STYLES OF WRITING TO GIVE FEEDBACK TO PAYING SUBSCRIBERS BUT WITHOUT PERMISSION OR WITHOUT ANY COMPENSATION.

I FIND IT IRONIC THAT A TOOL DESIGNED TO HELP WRITERS IS VIOLATING A CORE TENET OF WRITING ITSELF: INTEGRITY.

>> AND NOW MOVING TO OUR AS.

STARTING AGAIN WITH YOU, TAR A,.

>> TO CONGRESS FOR ITS ONGOING BIPARTISAN RESISTANCE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EFFORT TO CUT THE FUNDING FOR PROPOSED SCIENCE FUNDING PROJECTS.

IN ADDITION, CONGRESS HAS FINALIZED THE SPENDING PACKAGES FOR NASA AND THE FEDERAL GRANTS FOR PROGRAMS CUT BY DOGE, THE PROBLEM IS WHILE THIS IS GOOD NEWS, YOU KNOW THERE ARE DEPARTMENTS UNDER TRUMP'S CONTROL THAT ARE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO GET AROUND CONGRESS.

>> CHAD.

>> MY A GOES TO ALL OF SYRACUSE'S ST.

PATRICK'S DAY CELEBRATIONS.

CONGRATULATIONS TO SAM MORRIS OF SYRACUSE AND STEPHANIE RYAN OF FAYETTEVILLE FOR WINNING LAST WEEK'S TIP HILL SHAMROCK RUN AND TO THOSE CELEBRATING A COLD ST.

PATRICK'S DAY PARADE TOMORROW.

I RAISE A GLASS AND SAY SLANTA.

MAYBE I WILL SEE YOU IN THE PUB LATER.

>> ANIRBAN.

>> MY A GOES TO THE POST MODERN TIMES CAFE IN MINNEAPOLIS THAT CONTINUED TO FLOURISH AND MAKE PROFIT AFTER IT WENT TO A DONATION ONLY PRICE MODEL AFTER THE RECENT FEDERAL RATION IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT SURGE.

IT TURNS OUT VETERANS ARE NOW PAYING MORE THAN THEIR ORIGINAL TAB.

WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE LONG-TERM BUT THE SHORT-TERM, WE CAN SPECULATE ABOUT THE HIDDEN ECONOMICS OF KINDNESS.

>> AND MINE GO TO ANTHROPIC.

THEY REFUSED TO ALLOW THE PENTAGON TO USE THEIR A.I.

HEGSETH CALLED THEM ARROGANCE AND BLACK LISTED THEM AND ANTHROPIC HAS SUED.

THE MORAL CASE IS AIR TIGHT BUT LEGAL CASE IS UNCERTAIN AS COURTS TEND TO DEFER ON THE EXECUTIVE ON NATIONAL SECURITY.

BUT WHEN A GOVERNMENT CAN DESTROY A COMPANY FOR REFUSING TO BUILD A SURVEILLANCE STATE, WE ALL LOSE SOMETHING.

>> AND ANTHROPIC IS ARGUING ITS LAWSUIT ON THE GROUNDS OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS BUT ALSO POTENTIALLY FINANCIAL LOSSES.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

YES.

AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT ARGUMENT, WHILE I FEEL IT, I DON'T THINK IT HAS ANY LEGAL GROUNDS UNFORTUNATELY.

>> I THINK WE WILL COME BACK TO THAT.

AND THAT IS THE END OF TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION.

BEFORE WE GO, I WANT TO THANK SOME OF YOU WHO WROTE IN.

BILL OF SYRACUSE SHARED HIS THOUGHTS ABOUT LICENSE PLATE READERS, ALSO SANDY FROM CHERYL WAS HAPPY TO HERE LUKE'S INSIGHTS IN LAST WEEK'S SHOW AND NORM WOULD LIKE TO US DISCUSS HOW ICE IS ACTUALLY NOT ARRESTING THE WORST OF THE WORST.

WHAT DO THE REST OF YOU THINK.

SEND US AN EMAIL.

LET US KNOW.

WRITE TO AT DRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THE SHOW AGAIN OR POST IT ON YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA GO TO WCNY.ORG.

I'M NINA MOORE.

FOR ALL OF US HERE AT "IVORY TOWER," GOOD NIGHT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪