Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
If this episode makes you think, please let us know in the comments and support us by subscribing and leaving a review. Thank you. Today we are exploring a really striking situation from an article titled really Inappropriate Teachers Decry Plan for Humanoid Robot in New York High School by Michael Cenato, published in the guardian on July 25, 2020 x what really jumped out at me immediately from this piece is that a school district in New York State purchased a humanoid Robot for a CO50 $590 to be part of a pilot program and it sparked a huge outcry from teachers and the local community. It's a fascinating look at what happens when the rubber hits the road with advanced AI in education. So here's what's happening. Salamanca High School, which is located in Salamanca, New York on the Alleghany territory of the Seneca Nation, is planning to introduce a humanoid robot called Sally alongside an AI teaching assistant. The Cattaraugus County School District bought Sally and she's supposed to be a closed loop system available virtually 247 for students who have access offering personalized learning. According to a press release from realbotics, the company behind Sally, this district would be the first in the US to deploy both a humanoid robot and and an AI teaching assistant. They claim Sally will use natural conversation, facial expressions and real time interaction to create engaging hands on learning experiences. Now this is where it gets a bit murky and honestly, it's one of the first things that would raise a red flag for me. Realbotics, the company that developed Sally, was formerly tokens.com a crypto company, and they acquired Simulacra, a company known for realistic sex dolls, for $16.7 million in April 2024. This marked a pretty significant pivot for the company. Realbotics has denied ties to the sex doll company and says any inference that the dolls manufactured by Abyss Creations, which is a subsidiary of Real Boutics, are related to the pilot program is simply not true. But as you can imagine, this background didn't sit well with educators. Lacy Peelblad, who is the president of the Salamanca Teachers association and a teacher at the high school, expressed serious concerns. She told the Guardian that the union is worried about the background of Real Butticks, the security of the software, how data will be stored and gathered, and the recording capabilities. She made a very clear call for the school district to pause the implementation of both the robot and the AI technology until more people can weigh in. Lacy Peelblad really articulated the wider sentiment, stating that New York State is actually shifting away from too much technology in the classroom, not towards it. She feels that placing a humanoid robot to interact with children is a massive step in the wrong direction and that the majority of teachers agree. She also mentioned the union plans to include protections around artificial intelligence in their new contract negotiations. And that sentiment isn't just local. Melinda Person, the president of the New York State United Teachers, which is the parent union for the Salamanca Teachers association, echoed those concerns. She called the program really inappropriate and even kind of creepy, arguing that it's way out of the realm of what we should be doing in our schools. She really hit on a core point, saying that the answer to educational challenges isn't more screens, algorithms or robots. What schools truly need, she argues, are more caring adults and more human connection. It's not that teachers are anti technology, she clarified, but they are pro child and make decisions based on what benefits students. She fundamentally believes putting a lifeless machine in front of students, especially one designed to simulate human relationships with young people who are still learning social skills, is a bad idea and leads to the dehumanization of the profession. First, let's unpack the humanoid robot in school's idea through the lens of human connection. This is really where my core philosophy of enhancement, not replacement, comes into sharp focus. The article shows us a situation where teachers feel replaced, or at least deeply undermined by a machine that's trying to replicate what they do best, build relationships and foster human connection. One of my signature phrases is that machines can compute, they cannot wonder, they cannot care. And what Melinda Person is saying, quite rightly, is that care and human connection are precisely what students need. When we talk about AI in education, the real value isn't in what the machine produces, but in how the student responds and, crucially, in how the educator facilitates that response. A humanoid robot like Sally, designed to mimic human interaction, steps into a domain that I believe should be protected, the unique human capacity for relationship, judgment and imagination. These are the things I cannot do, and we risk damaging them if we push for technologies that attempt to simulate them rather than augment human educators. This isn't just about the technology. It's an active offeree AI in education debate about the very nature of learning and human development. The second major area of concern here, which is frankly appalling, is the cultural context. The article highlights that Salamanca High School has a significant Native American student population, nearly 40% of its student body. Local residents, including Sierra Mae Abrams, a substitute teacher and residential, feel they are being experimented on Native American children. Yet again, she brings up the painful history of Native American boarding schools and the impact they had on their elders. Alison Brown, a community health specialist and Seneca Nation member, reinforces this, noting that many students have connections to relatives who attended the Thomas Indian School and that families are viewing this pilot program as history repeating itself. The Seneca Nation itself declined to comment to the Guardian, which speaks volumes. The second thing teachers should know about this situation is how it dramatically fails on the equity front. My perspective on AI as an equalizer is that it should be used to bridge gaps, not widen them. It should make education more accessible and equitable, especially for groups that have been historically underserved or marginalized. When we talk about equity, we have to recognize that accessibility isn't an afterthought. It has to be a foundation to introduce a cutting edge, controversial technology like a humanoid robot in schools into a community with such a deep and traumatic history related to external interventions and experimentation with how clear, deep and genuine consultation is, as the article states, culturally tone deaf at best and deeply harmful at worst. This isn't about AI providing IEP support or differentiation. It's about a technology being imposed in a way that risks reopening old wounds and eroding trust rather than building it. It completely misses the point of starting with why not how? What educational purpose is being served by actively undermining community trust and and potentially causing psychological distress? It feels like an example of technology for technology's sake rather than for genuine educational benefit or equity. Here's what this means for school leaders and the overall approach to implementing AI. The school district and Superintendent Mark Beeler did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the Guardian. The spokesperson for realbotics did say that the program is intended to complement, not replace teachers and to give students supervised access to emerging AI and robotics tools as part of the existing STEM curriculum, allowing educators to evaluate these technologies in a controlled environment. However, the New York State Department of Education's Assistant Commissioner of Public Affairs, JP o', Hare, expressed serious concerns about student privacy, appropriate safeguards, and the risk that the robot could be used to perform functions that should remain the responsibility of trained, qualified professionals. He clearly stated that technology should not replace the human judgment or accountability essential to a safe and effective learning environment. This situation is a textbook example of poor change leadership, and it highlights many of the e I wish AI teaching assistant concerns we've been discussing. My framework for change leadership emphasizes that teachers labeled resistant usually just need time and space. Instead, it seems here that the Salamanca Teachers association, led by Lacy Peelblad, was largely excluded from the decision making process, leading them to call for a pause. This isn't how you build from strengths or create champions. Instead, it creates suspicion and fear, undermining the entire initiative before it even properly starts. You have to anchor AI to exist in friction points and clearly articulate the purpose, not just drop in a shiny new tool. This feels less like evolution, not revolution, and more like a top down imposition that's generating a lot of pushback. If you're finding this discussion valuable, please do make sure you're subscribed to the podcast wherever you listen so you don't miss future episodes on AI in Education Looking at this through the three box model of innovation, the district appears to have jumped straight into a box 2 non linear innovation trying to reimagine education with a humanoid robot. But they seem to have completely bypassed box one, doing what we do better by not addressing fundamental teacher and community concerns first. The answer isn't either or, it's both. And you need to build trust and optimize existing systems before pushing radical new technologies, especially ones with such complex implications as Robotics in Education Ethics. We're also seeing a complete breakdown of the know like trust progression here. It seems the District and realbotics have failed at the no stage. There's clearly a lack of transparency about the company's background and the technology's implications. The this then makes it impossible for the community to like or trust the initiative. Melinda Person's creepy comment is a direct reflection of this lack of trust and relatability. When stakeholders don't know enough or what they know is alarming, you can't build credibility. This whole scenario is a stark reminder that AI literacy isn't just about technical skills. It's about collaborative reasoning ability, understanding AI limitations, managing conversations with precision, and developing reflective awareness about AI's influence. It's about exercising a theory of mind, understanding what the AI knows or doesn't know, and more importantly, what the humans involved know or don't know and what they feel. The teachers and community members here are demonstrating a higher degree of AI literacy than the implementers simply by asking critical questions about purpose, ethics and human impact. The humanoid robot in school's concept, particularly the way it's been introduced in Salamanca, New York, really crystallizes the profound challenges when technology deployment outpaces thoughtful pedagogical and ethical consideration. We must always, always remember to outsource your doing, not your thinking. And perhaps more importantly here, machines can compute. They cannot wander. They cannot care. That's all for today. Thanks for listening.