Simon discusses mental health risks of chatbots and recommends book on reading brains

I do want to say a word about AMERA, which I know has been mentioned a couple of times, that it was at the press conference we did releasing the AI policy.

It actually is a very good program, but it's a supportive program.

It's not an intervention program.

And I think that's something we need to recognize as well.

I'm a little concerned that people have been using it for instruction or it may not have been used appropriately.

It really is because you need redundancy.

You need repetition for kids who have reading disabilities.

It does work very well.

I looked at it when it first came out, for example.

I had an expert that I've worked with.

of my expert witnesses who looked at it.

It's a really good program.

So I want to make sure we don't lose what's good about AMERA for those kids who really need it.

The other thing I want to mention, just some notes I have.

As we're adding reading interventions, I know we have these wind, you know, what I need periods.

It's important that kids who really have Tier 2 and Tier 3 instructional needs are not just sitting there doing iReady with the same screens as everybody else.

I think in some classrooms we're finding that that's been happening.

I think school personnel need guidance on how to address this issue.

Another point that I want to make is that we use this technology for the purposes for which they're designed.

You know, certain off-label work can work for certain students, but the dangers of overuse for these purposes for which they're not validated is an issue.

And if you remember, we did the teacher evaluation thing probably about 10, 12 years ago, and they were using the tests to evaluate teachers and using the math scores to evaluate the art teachers.

That's a classic example.

They were never meant for that purpose.

Those tests were never meant for that purpose.

The Davidson Protocol was never meant for that purpose.

And we put it into law.

They undid it a year later because it made no sense at all.

But that's a classic example.

And if I have to quote Martha Stewart, I will.

The right tool for the right job, right?

You use the right tool for the job.

And we don't do that enough.

Mental health, the committee's report addresses a few things.

I think one thing that we have to recognize is that, again, for mental health purposes, for some neuroatypical kids, the screens and devices can make a big difference for them.

What we need to do is get a better rubric and a better sense of how we can evaluate when they are becoming dangerous, right?

We have kids who have formed relationships with chatbots, and they have self-harm.

Some of them have, in fact, taken their own lives because it's almost somewhat Rogerian the way the chatbots work.

They make you feel better about what you're thinking.

Well, if you feel that way, go right ahead.

This is not a helpful thing.

So I know that we're not doing that with our young kids, but our teenagers, if they're going home and using that.

So I think it goes to this issue about digital literacy, how to protect yourself, have parents understand how to protect their children, and to learn more about what their kids are using so that they're not in the dark.

Because what happens, you find our parents had no idea that this child had a relationship with a chatbot until it was too late.

And we want to keep that from happening.

And then one other thing I want to just...

Suggest is a book called Reader Come Home, which was written by Mary Ann Wolfe, who was at Tufts for many years.

She's now at UCLA.

She wrote Proust and the Squid, The Science of the Reading Brain, about 10, 12 years ago.

She just did a book, Style.

as sort of letters to readers about various aspects of brain functioning and screens

and the development of language, how language actually changes how you think and feel and relate and how you understand yourself but also others and how you connect with literature.

And there are real differences that we're seeing in brains from the use of reading on screens.

And she talked about how she's changing how her brain is functioning by using screens.

And so it's an easy book to read.

I listened to it on the way up to Albany for a couple of weeks.

It's really pretty short.

But I really do recommend it because it's a very different eye-opening introduction to what's going on in our brains.

When we're using screens.

So thank you for your attention.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

No, you're good.

No, I was going to say thank you so much, Senator.

I think there's really important points to keep in mind, and I appreciate you highlighting these nuances, too, and considerations for us all to think about as we work on this together.

Yeah, I want to thank you as well.

I understand from growing up the assembly is the hardest working legislative body in the state.

Yes, of course.

The Senate does nothing.

That's what I was brought up to.

Yeah.

Belief.

And they have better food in the lounge.

You know, they have all these perks and they don't do anything.

Yeah, the ice cream and the cookies.

Yeah, exactly.

I know.

I've had them before.

But, by the way, when you mentioned the testing and the gym teacher getting the, you know, being judged on, like, what the math.

Teacher, I think I was chapter leader when we were dealing with all that, and so thank you for the PTSD.

But I do want to thank you, first and foremost, for the work you've done over the years, particularly for the disability community.

Those are my students, so I want to thank you for that.

and also for your testimony, which recognizes, I think, some of the points that Chair Krishna and I are calling for, which is an evidence-based approach, which is when you have a tool that works, it's the same in the FOCUS Act for Senator Granardis.

It's, you know, what's the evidence there to support the implementation of this product?

Aligned with the training for the teacher to make sure that if it is a good product, it's being used properly and not to offload

work or not to rely on it, but as some sort of supplement or whatever the product's designed for with the teacher training.

And so I appreciate the both of you for the work that you've done, the work that you're doing, and the continued partnership to make sure we are getting this right for our kids.

You know, I want to, if I can, give you an example like of Zoom, right?

You know, when COVID happened, we all learned how to Zoom, and we learned how to do various things on Zoom.

But now you find that we're using Zoom as a way, you know, just in community meetings, for example, to not have anybody ask questions.

You disable the chat.

You don't allow people to unmute.

And then there's no interaction.

And so I think it's an example of one of those things that really can work great.

It brought more people into the fold.

It allowed us to communicate in a way that we weren't able to communicate.

During certain times, it makes it much more convenient for people to participate in meetings.

It's great in many ways, but we have to be careful that we don't kind of go off the...

the edge and have it become the thing that does bring us together but starts dividing us.

It's amazing though, six and a half years later and so many people still can't find that mute button.

Not a public meeting, it's amazing.

Councillor Wong, you had a question I think, right?