This was a very interesting episode, and I normally would have tons of comments, but July is extremely busy at my workplace, and I have barely had time to do my regular household taks!
Today I read this Substack post for work, and thought of both the episode and the show. The post is measured - AI companies are giving subscriptions away to educators, and that isn't necessarily a 100% bad thing. From the post: "This Competition Could Benefit Schools: One of the most encouraging parts of this trend is that competition often produces better products. Rather than competing only on which AI model performs best, companies are beginning to compete on the issues educators care about most. Privacy, transparency, professional learning, classroom integration, and educator support are becoming important differentiators. That is a healthy development because those issues directly affect schools, teachers, and students."
The number of times Beth said what I was thinking in this episode ... my walking pace increased so much the longer I listened. lol Sometimes I want to be challenged but dang it felt good to be affirmed in this one!
Also I had "TELL THE TRUTH" written on my white board for years because as a conflict avoider, I had a tendency to dance around it. I erased it not so long ago and today I added, " the truth is the best talking point." The perfect next step for me.
I give the Dems some credit for trying to oust Platner after the rape allegations, but I don't know why the earlier reporting about the way he treated women wasn't disqualifying, and I would give the Dems a lot more credit for it if Platner's poll numbers hadn't already started decreasing.
Nice complement to the political typology survey from Pew. This grid uses the exact axes Alex referred to. And gets *very* nuanced in results. Two of my friends landed in the same bad/transformative quadrant as me but we had three meaningfully different types.
Thank you for posting this I ended up in the bad/transformative as well but right on the line of almost "good" quadrant. I like how there are 30 different meaningful types.
This is fun. I got "The Shrug." In the Transformative/Good quadrant, but barely. I wasn't sure how to answer the question about 2031. I do think we are overinvested, and the bubble will burst, but I also think the tech will change a lot about how we work - as exactly happened with the internet.
The one Platner question I want to hear progressives grappling with right now, more than any other, is: Why didn't he move non-college white voters in Maine into his (our) camp. He was supposed to be the working class avatar. All his support still came from college educated liberal elites. If we ever want to win the Senate again, we need an answer to this that doesn't involve magical thinking.
They probably recognized that he wasn't the real deal pretty quickly. Somewhat related, I saw an Instagram post that pointed out that AOC never backed him and the theory is, she had worked as a bartender... she could spot everything that was about to unfold from a mile away.
I enjoyed this and agree with points others have stated - especially how groups with some $ gaining a candidates ear, but is not truly even stating what voters want.
I'm still listening but wanted to take my lunch break opportunity to comment. These two points have really stuck out to me so far:
- That part of the problem with advocacy groups and politicians is that advocacy groups are sometimes out ahead of where their base is, and there's no structure holding said groups to account with their base. This opened some doors in my brain. I never thought of it this way.
- I am with you, Beth, that I want candidates who will do their homework and make the best decisions based on the best available information, ideally aligned with the results I wish to see (and those desired results are likely shaped by my values). Whoever cracks the code of marrying that with how they word their platform as a candidate will be a formidable candidate.
One of the roots of the advocacy group problem is that the people who show up to do the hard work of community organizing are often “ahead of the base” and more progressive. The “base” is invested but not involved and then voices their displeasure with the approach when it’s too late to shape the approach being taken—or just in time to undermine the hard won efforts of the organizers. I saw this cycle while working for a union in higher ed. People to people relationship building counters this cycle but it takes So. Much. Time.
It really makes sense to me that they get out ahead of voters, too! When you think about something all the time, you think about it differently than people who only drop in occasionally or from a specific lens.
Holding advocy groups accountable! Ding ding ding, we have a winning idea here!
I feel like this is the secret to turning around the problems in Seattle that are making downtown a ghost town, growing the homeless population, and putting more and more people in danger of overdosing on the streets, all while millions of tax dollars are wasted and even lost. Advocates keep advocating for failing programs while uninformed voters have no way to combat their influence.
I really enjoyed this episode but found myself so frustrated being told to call my reps about my concerns with AI. I found Beth’s story about her friend who called about her concerns with Pete Hegseth’s Anthropic shake up and they had no idea what she was talking about totally infuriating. Why should I be significantly more informed than my congressmen? I am tired of calling and telling them what is important to me when they clearly do not care. This really sent me into a spiral of feeling totally hopeless in feeling like nothing can change!
I live in a state capital, so I know many people who work for legislators. They tell me that you need to keep going back to them. They are hit with 20, 40, 50, 100 issues a day (and this is at the state level). There is no way they can be on top of them all. To us, the Anthropic thing is very important, but if no one is contacting them about it, and the maple sugar farmers have already called or visited multiple times that week with their issues (real example from my state, New York), then they may not know. State legislatures are probably more responsive (and responsible) than the federal one right now, so maybe start with them to reduce your frustration.
I never want you to feel totally hopeless! It is frustrating that Congress is so behind the ball on AI as a whole. I also try to remember that no one is capable of knowing everything that our members really need to know, so it makes sense for members to specialize in some areas of expertise. Still, I hope that putting issues outside their zones of interest on their radar from constituents makes them more open to listening when a bill is proposed.
Thank you Beth! I am sure I am also projecting my frustration with living in KS under a republican supermajority in our state senate and NOT feeling heard or represented!!!
Come for the nuanced political discussion. Stay for the medieval battle reenactment? You never know what you’ll learn about on PP. Enjoyed your conversation for sure!
Where are the men who haven't raped, sexually assaulted, abused, stalked, harassed women? And if the Democrats have this firm line, why aren't these men being weeded out before they rise to the level of candidate for congress?
What happens is...men get away with these behaviors for so long, they think that either it doesn't matter or they are clearly the best at hiding it and no need to worry. They rise through the ranks until they (sometimes) crash and burn and leave situations like the Maine elections in their wake.
I'm seriously considering never voting for a man again.
When I first heard the Platner story, before the worst allegations, my question was “There are 1.4 million people in Maine and they can’t find ONE person who’s less problematic?”
I don't always have all the time in the world to research candidates for local office. Come election day, if a brief review of the online materials doesn't tell me enough, I just vote for the female candidate.
To your point about Democrats and their firm line - Exactly.
One clue in the vetting process should have been that Platner had zero political experience. US Senate is not the place to start. In all this line drawing, we've got to carve out a reasonable space that falls between complete neophyte and establishment geezer.
We respect that teachers and doctors, and scientists, have specialized experience that matters. We should respect that in our representatives as well, and hold them to high standards just as we do those other professionals.
I was just saying the same thing at dinner last night. Being a politician and running a government takes a heck of a lot of skills. I want someone who has done the more boring trajectory - city council, state legislator, US rep, Senator, president - or something similar.
Yes! I want someone who has practice being accountable to constituents, not someone who is just a placeholder the party has put in the Senate for votes in the chamber.
It's like the party didn't stop to consider that Platner is a fully formed person with his own mind who could choose to do whatever when he got into office.
I could not agree more about not starting with the Senate! Imagine in any other context: "I have no experience but I'd like to be one of only 100 people in the country with this job."
This was a very interesting episode, and I normally would have tons of comments, but July is extremely busy at my workplace, and I have barely had time to do my regular household taks!
Today I read this Substack post for work, and thought of both the episode and the show. The post is measured - AI companies are giving subscriptions away to educators, and that isn't necessarily a 100% bad thing. From the post: "This Competition Could Benefit Schools: One of the most encouraging parts of this trend is that competition often produces better products. Rather than competing only on which AI model performs best, companies are beginning to compete on the issues educators care about most. Privacy, transparency, professional learning, classroom integration, and educator support are becoming important differentiators. That is a healthy development because those issues directly affect schools, teachers, and students."
https://aischoollibrarian.substack.com/p/why-are-ai-companies-giving-teachers
The number of times Beth said what I was thinking in this episode ... my walking pace increased so much the longer I listened. lol Sometimes I want to be challenged but dang it felt good to be affirmed in this one!
Also I had "TELL THE TRUTH" written on my white board for years because as a conflict avoider, I had a tendency to dance around it. I erased it not so long ago and today I added, " the truth is the best talking point." The perfect next step for me.
I give the Dems some credit for trying to oust Platner after the rape allegations, but I don't know why the earlier reporting about the way he treated women wasn't disqualifying, and I would give the Dems a lot more credit for it if Platner's poll numbers hadn't already started decreasing.
The grid of AI stances/perspectives that Alex imagined exists! And there is a quiz! https://bambamramfan.github.io/ai-compass/?trk=feed_main-feed-card_feed-article-content
Nice complement to the political typology survey from Pew. This grid uses the exact axes Alex referred to. And gets *very* nuanced in results. Two of my friends landed in the same bad/transformative quadrant as me but we had three meaningfully different types.
Thank you for posting this I ended up in the bad/transformative as well but right on the line of almost "good" quadrant. I like how there are 30 different meaningful types.
Amazing how much variation there is within the same quadrants!
This is fun. I got "The Shrug." In the Transformative/Good quadrant, but barely. I wasn't sure how to answer the question about 2031. I do think we are overinvested, and the bubble will burst, but I also think the tech will change a lot about how we work - as exactly happened with the internet.
Elizabeth, thank you! I love this
The one Platner question I want to hear progressives grappling with right now, more than any other, is: Why didn't he move non-college white voters in Maine into his (our) camp. He was supposed to be the working class avatar. All his support still came from college educated liberal elites. If we ever want to win the Senate again, we need an answer to this that doesn't involve magical thinking.
They probably recognized that he wasn't the real deal pretty quickly. Somewhat related, I saw an Instagram post that pointed out that AOC never backed him and the theory is, she had worked as a bartender... she could spot everything that was about to unfold from a mile away.
YES!!!! Once more and LOUDER for the progressives in the back, Lou!
I enjoyed this and agree with points others have stated - especially how groups with some $ gaining a candidates ear, but is not truly even stating what voters want.
Pausing listening here to say that here in Oregon, Senator Kff Merkley holds town halls in every county in the state.
Very glad to hear that!
Please excuse my typing - that should be Jeff Merkley.
I'm still listening but wanted to take my lunch break opportunity to comment. These two points have really stuck out to me so far:
- That part of the problem with advocacy groups and politicians is that advocacy groups are sometimes out ahead of where their base is, and there's no structure holding said groups to account with their base. This opened some doors in my brain. I never thought of it this way.
- I am with you, Beth, that I want candidates who will do their homework and make the best decisions based on the best available information, ideally aligned with the results I wish to see (and those desired results are likely shaped by my values). Whoever cracks the code of marrying that with how they word their platform as a candidate will be a formidable candidate.
One of the roots of the advocacy group problem is that the people who show up to do the hard work of community organizing are often “ahead of the base” and more progressive. The “base” is invested but not involved and then voices their displeasure with the approach when it’s too late to shape the approach being taken—or just in time to undermine the hard won efforts of the organizers. I saw this cycle while working for a union in higher ed. People to people relationship building counters this cycle but it takes So. Much. Time.
Excellent points to consider!
It really makes sense to me that they get out ahead of voters, too! When you think about something all the time, you think about it differently than people who only drop in occasionally or from a specific lens.
Exactly!! You get tunnel vision!
Holding advocy groups accountable! Ding ding ding, we have a winning idea here!
I feel like this is the secret to turning around the problems in Seattle that are making downtown a ghost town, growing the homeless population, and putting more and more people in danger of overdosing on the streets, all while millions of tax dollars are wasted and even lost. Advocates keep advocating for failing programs while uninformed voters have no way to combat their influence.
Advocacy for failing programs + uninformed voters = no-win situation for everyone
I really enjoyed this episode but found myself so frustrated being told to call my reps about my concerns with AI. I found Beth’s story about her friend who called about her concerns with Pete Hegseth’s Anthropic shake up and they had no idea what she was talking about totally infuriating. Why should I be significantly more informed than my congressmen? I am tired of calling and telling them what is important to me when they clearly do not care. This really sent me into a spiral of feeling totally hopeless in feeling like nothing can change!
I live in a state capital, so I know many people who work for legislators. They tell me that you need to keep going back to them. They are hit with 20, 40, 50, 100 issues a day (and this is at the state level). There is no way they can be on top of them all. To us, the Anthropic thing is very important, but if no one is contacting them about it, and the maple sugar farmers have already called or visited multiple times that week with their issues (real example from my state, New York), then they may not know. State legislatures are probably more responsive (and responsible) than the federal one right now, so maybe start with them to reduce your frustration.
I never want you to feel totally hopeless! It is frustrating that Congress is so behind the ball on AI as a whole. I also try to remember that no one is capable of knowing everything that our members really need to know, so it makes sense for members to specialize in some areas of expertise. Still, I hope that putting issues outside their zones of interest on their radar from constituents makes them more open to listening when a bill is proposed.
Thank you Beth! I am sure I am also projecting my frustration with living in KS under a republican supermajority in our state senate and NOT feeling heard or represented!!!
Come for the nuanced political discussion. Stay for the medieval battle reenactment? You never know what you’ll learn about on PP. Enjoyed your conversation for sure!
I love it when we get an unexpected and niche OOP!
Where are the men who haven't raped, sexually assaulted, abused, stalked, harassed women? And if the Democrats have this firm line, why aren't these men being weeded out before they rise to the level of candidate for congress?
What happens is...men get away with these behaviors for so long, they think that either it doesn't matter or they are clearly the best at hiding it and no need to worry. They rise through the ranks until they (sometimes) crash and burn and leave situations like the Maine elections in their wake.
I'm seriously considering never voting for a man again.
When I first heard the Platner story, before the worst allegations, my question was “There are 1.4 million people in Maine and they can’t find ONE person who’s less problematic?”
I don't always have all the time in the world to research candidates for local office. Come election day, if a brief review of the online materials doesn't tell me enough, I just vote for the female candidate.
To your point about Democrats and their firm line - Exactly.
One clue in the vetting process should have been that Platner had zero political experience. US Senate is not the place to start. In all this line drawing, we've got to carve out a reasonable space that falls between complete neophyte and establishment geezer.
We respect that teachers and doctors, and scientists, have specialized experience that matters. We should respect that in our representatives as well, and hold them to high standards just as we do those other professionals.
I was just saying the same thing at dinner last night. Being a politician and running a government takes a heck of a lot of skills. I want someone who has done the more boring trajectory - city council, state legislator, US rep, Senator, president - or something similar.
Yes! I want someone who has practice being accountable to constituents, not someone who is just a placeholder the party has put in the Senate for votes in the chamber.
It's like the party didn't stop to consider that Platner is a fully formed person with his own mind who could choose to do whatever when he got into office.
I could not agree more about not starting with the Senate! Imagine in any other context: "I have no experience but I'd like to be one of only 100 people in the country with this job."