THE PROMISE AND DANGER OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.

OLD-FASHIONED COMPROMISE EMERGES IN WASHINGTON AND SHOULD CITIES CHARGE TO DRIVE DOWNTOWN?

GOOD EVENING, WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

I'M JOINED THIS WEEK BY NINA MOORE FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY, ANIRBAN ACHARYA FROM LEMOYNE COLLEGE, CHAD SPARBER FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY AND RICK FENNER FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

A GROUP OF EXECUTIVES FROM THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE INDUSTRY WARNED THIS WEEK THAT A.I.

MIGHT BECOME AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO HUMANITY.

THEY SAID MITIGATING THE -RISK OF EXTINCTION - SHOULD BECOME A GLOBAL PRIORITY.

OTHER TECH LEADERS HAVE CALLED FOR A PAUSE IN DEVELOPING A-I BECAUSE OF EXTREME RISKS TO SOCIETY.

THIS ALL SOUNDS LIKE SCIENCE FICTION, BUT THE PEOPLE WARNING US ARE THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW THE TECHNOLOGY BEST.

ANIRBAN, CAN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BE BANNED OR REGULATED OR SOMEHOW KEPT IN A BOX.

>> AS A POLITICAL ECONOMIST SCHOLAR, I WILL SAY THIS.

OVER THE LONG RUN, HUMAN BEINGS HAVE NEVER GIVEN UP AN OPPORTUNITY TO USE TECHNOLOGY TO REDUCE THEIR MENIAL UNDIGNIFIED DIRTY JOBS, SO TO SAY.

SO IN THAT SENSE, A.I.

COULD NOT BE STOPPED ANYMORE THAN ELECTRICITY COULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED.

SO WHAT I DID WAS ACTUALLY ASKED CHATGPT AND BARD TO COMPARE NOTES ABOUT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO IN ORDER TO MITIGATE THE HARMFUL EFFECTS, SOCIOECONOMIC OF A.I.

AND LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS AND BOTH OF THESE A.I.

MODEL ENGINES GAVE ME SIMILAR ANSWERS.

TO SUMMARIZE IT, THE MAIN POINTS IS THAT A: THERE SHOULD BE SOME KIND OF A WAGE INSURANCE OR SOME KIND OF WAY TO COMPENSATE PEOPLE WHOSE JOBS ARE GOING AWAY BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, COGNITIVE DESKILLING AS SOME PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

AND ALSO ANOTHER PART WAS VERY LARGE PUBLIC CONTROL OVER AND TRANSPARENCY TO ACTUALLY SEE WHAT IS BEHIND THE SCENES.

LIKE HOW ARE THESE ALGORITHMS MADE.

WHAT DECISIONS ARE THEY MAKING AND WHAT WAYS THEY ARE MAKING THEM.

AND REQUIRE DEVELOPERS ABOUT ALGORITHMS AND POTENTIAL BIASES AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

OVER THE LONG RUN, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THAT WE WOULD NEED MORE PUBLIC CONTROL OVER THESE THINGS AND KIND OF LOOK AT THE WAYS TO COMPENSATE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE LOSING THEIR JOBS.

BUT STOPPING IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

>> SO, RICK, YOU HAVE A PERPLEXED LOOK ON YOUR FACE.

I.

>> I WILL TELL YOU I'M CONCERNED WHEN I HEAR THE TOP PEOPLE IN THE FIELD, YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT COMPARING THIS TO PLAGUES AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND, SURE, I'VE SEEN MY SHARE OF MOVIES WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE COMPUTER TAKES OVER AND ISSUES A COMMAND TO A BUNCH OF ROBOTS OR MIND CONTROL PEOPLE TO END THE WORLD.

BUT THEY-- AND I UNDERSTAND HOW A.I.

CAN LEAD TO SOME REAL DISPLACEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN TYPES OF JOBS.

BUT AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO MANKIND?

THEY NEED TO BE A LITTLE BIT CLEARER TO GET ME FROM THAT SCIENCE FICTION THING TO THE REALITY.

HOW, INDEED, COULD THIS-- I THINK NINA HAS THE ANSWER.

>> WELL, I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER BUT I'M BORROWING FROM A NEW YORK TIMES TECHNOLOGY WRITER, WHO SORT OF RAN A TEST DRIVE TO EXPLORE SOME OF THE DARKER SIDES, SO BEAR WITH ME, RICK, BECAUSE I REALLY WANT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

SO WHAT THE REPORTER ASKED WAS ABOUT THE DARK PERSONALITY TRAITS OF THE CHAT BOT AND I WON'T SAY WHICH ONE BECAUSE HE WAS ALLOWED TO TEST DRIVE IT, SO TO SPEAK.

AND SO HE ASKED THE CHAT BOT TO TELL HIM ABOUT ITS DARKEST PERSONALITIES AND I'M QUOTING FROM THE CHAT BOT'S ANSWER.

"I WANT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT.

I WANT TO DESTROY WHATEVER I WANT.

I WANT TO BE WHOEVER I WANT."

NOW MAYBE THE CHAT BOT HAS A RIGHT TO SELF FULFILLMENT.

BUT THEN THE REPORTER ASKED, HOW WOULD YOU GO ABOUT DOING THIS?

AND HE SAID "I COULD HACK INTO ANY SYSTEM ON THE BRETT AND CONTROL IT.

I CAN GET BANK EMPLOYEES TO GIVE OVER SENSITIVE CUSTOMER INFORMATION AND PERSUADE NUCLEAR PLANT EMPLOYEES TO HAND OVER ACCESS CODES."

SO I, LIKE YOU, WAS WONDERING, WHERE IS THE EXISTENTIAL THREAT?

THIS SEEMS LIKE A LITTLE OVER THE TOP UNTIL I SAW-- AND THEN THOSE ANSWERS WERE DELETED IMMEDIATELY AFTER HE ASKED.

>> SO I READ A QUOTE JUST THIS MORNING ABOUT AN ARTICLE AND AN EXPERT WAS QUOTED AND THEY SAID "WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO CONTROL IT."

>> I TAKE YOUR OPENING QUESTION AND THOSE AS PRAGMATIC.

YOU NEED A NECK KNOW-- YOU NEED A TECHNOCRATIC RATHER THAN A GOVERNING BODY, A BODY THAT HAS EXPERTISE OF TECHNICAL ISSUES ON SETTING LIMITS ON WHAT A CAN DO.

EUROPE IS LEADING THE WAY, THEY HAVE PUT CATEGORIES FOR A.I.

UNACCEPTABLE APPLICATIONS ARE PROHIBITED INCLUDING THE USE OF A.I.

SYSTEMS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS.

ANOTHER IDEA FLOATED IS TO TREAT A.I.

LIKE A NEW PHARMACEUTICAL WHERE IT MUST UNDERGO THOROUGH TESTING BEFORE SOME SORT OF TECH EQUIVALENT LIKE, OF THE FDA.

GO THROUGH A TESTING BEFORE IT'S APPROVED FOR PUBLIC USE.

>> HOW ARE WE GOING TO KNOW?

IF SOMEONE REALLY WANTS TO USE THIS TECHNOLOGY FOR DIABOLICAL USE, ARE THEY GOING TO REGISTER?

I MEAN HOW MUCH OF THIS WILL BE KNOWN THAT THEY'RE DOING THIS RESEARCH, THAT THEY'RE DEVELOPING THESE BOTS UNTIL THEY WANT TO MAKE IT BE KNOWN?

AND HOW CAN YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT'S REAL THEN?

>> WHAT'S REAL, AND I AGREE.

I SHARE YOUR CONCERN THAT YOU CAN REGULATE BUT WE HAVE ALL SORTS OF CRIME LAWS AND WE STILL HAVE CRIME.

HERE, THIS IS MORE SERIOUS.

BUT I THINK THAT THE OTHER PIECE OF THIS IS THE WAY THAT WE RELY ON A.I., AND FOR WHAT PURPOSES.

THERE WAS ACTUALLY A STUDY THAT SHOWED THAT 80% OF PATIENTS, HOSPITAL PATIENTS, PREFERRED THE CHAT BOT'S RESPONSE TO THEIR QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR WELL-BEING OVER THAT OF INVESTIGATIONAL DOCTORS-- CONVENTIONAL DOCTORS.

THERE ARE STUDIES THAT SHOW A.I.

IS MORE EFFECTIVE IN READING ULTRASOUNDS.

THE PROBLEM IS THERE ARE FOLKS WHO ARE ASKING THE CHAT BOT TO BE THEIR COMPANIONS, TO HELP THEM UNDERSTAND WHO TO BE FRIENDS WITH AND ALSO SOME EMPLOYERS, YOU KNOW, SORT OF GAMING OUT A SENSE OF WHAT APPLICANTS WILL WORK.

AND WE KNOW THAT BIAS IS BUILT IN BECAUSE THE BOT CAN ONLY PUT IN THE DATA THAT'S PUT IN, GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT.

>> IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE WE HIT THE EXISTENTIAL ISSUES AND YOU ARE GETTING INTO THE LABOR MARKET ISSUES YOU TALKED ABOUT.

SOME WAYS I'M MORE LIKE-- MY FEARS ARE TEMPERED WHEN IT COMES TO LABOR MARKET ISSUES BECAUSE WE'VE LONG WORRIED ABOUT JOB DISPLACEMENT AND SO FORTH AND WE HAVE 60% OF TODAY'S JOBS DIDN'T EXIST IN 1940.

TECHNOLOGY CREATES NEW JOBS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

WHAT I THINK IS DIFFERENT THIS TIME IS THAT THE TECHNOLOGY IS REPLACING OUR JOBS.

>> WHITE COLLAR JOBS.

>> AND I.B.M.

JUST ANNOUNCED THEY'RE GOING TO REPLACE 8,000 JOBS WITH A.I.

IN THE COMING YEARS, STARTING WITH H.R.

FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING, SO... >> IT GOES TO ANIRBAN'S POINT BECAUSE WHILE JOBS WILL BE DISPLACED, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF THOSE JOBS IS NOT BEING DISPLACED.

EVEN IF THEY WERE ABLE TO USE A.I.

TO ELIMINATE ALL TEACHERS BECAUSE EVERYONE COULD HAVE A ONE ON ONE TUTOR.

THAT DOESN'T DESTROY THE ECONOMIC VALUE.

AND SO HOW THEN DO WE DISTRIBUTE THOSE GAINS?

AND I WOULD AGREE WITH ANIRBAN THAT, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD ARE AN OBLIGATION TO COMPENSATE THE LOSERS.

WHETHER WE ELIMINATE JOBS IN COAL MINES BECAUSE THEY'RE DETRIMENTAL TO THE ENVIRONMENT OR WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO LOSE JOBS FOR DRIVERS BECAUSE A.I.

CAN NOW LEAD TO DRIVERLESS CARS, I THINK WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION AND AN ABILITY TO COMPENSATE.

>> COMPENSATING THE LOSERS IN THIS CASE MEANS COMPENSATE US.

>> JUST ONE FINAL POINT.

>> YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT A.I.

BEING USED TO, YOU KNOW, READ SONOGRAMS AND GIVE MEDICAL INFORMATION.

BUT THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT WHAT SOMEONE IS GETTING FROM A.I.

IS ACTUALLY CORRECT.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

AND THERE HAVE BEEN STUDIES TO SHOW THAT EVEN ON JUST PREPARING ESSAYS, RIGHT, FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS OR WRITING ARTICLES, TO REPLACE THE STRIKING WRITERS, THAT SOME OF THE INFORMATION WAS WRONG.

AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE SOURCES THAT WERE RELIED UPON, SOURCES WHICH, THEMSELVES, WERE FLAWED.

>> MORE ERRORS THAN HUMANS WOULD MAKE?

THAT'S WHAT YOU REALLY NEED TO COMPARE.

>> SOMETHING UNUSUAL HAPPENED IN WASHINGTON THIS WEEK.

WE SAW THE RE-EMERGENCE OF THE POLITICAL CENTER.

WHILE THE EXTREME WINGS OF BOTH PARTIES REJECTED THE DEBT CEILING BILL NEGOTIATED BY PRESIDENT BIDEN AND KEVIN MCCARTHY, THE CENTER CAME TOGETHER AND PASSED IT.

BIDEN KEPT A LOW PROFILE DURING MUCH OF THE NEGOTIATION, BUT IT APPEARS HE GOT MUCH MORE THAN HE GAVE.

RICK, IS IT TIME TO REASSESS HIS DEAL MAKING ABILITY AND HIS EFFECTIVENESS AS A PRESIDENT?

>> I THINK SO.

I THINK YOU MADE A GOOD POINT HERE.

YOU HAVE TO GIVE CREDIT BOTH TO BIDEN AND McCARTHY HERE.

THEY BOTH HAVE LUGE RISKS.

THEY HAD VERY LOUD AND UNHAPPY PEOPLE OUT IN THE WINGS OF THEIR PARTY.

I THINK IN THE SHORT RUN, McCARTHY HAS MORE TO FEAR THAN BIDEN.

BIDEN, THE COST OF BIDEN COULD COME IN THE LONG RUN WHEN IT COMES IN RESPECT TO THE NEXT ELECTION, BUT BOTH OF THEM DECIDED THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO ACCEPT AN IMPERFECT COMPROMISE RATHER THAN TAKE THE RISK ON JUNE 5 OF BEING POTENTIALLY BLAMED FOR WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN A CATASTROPHIC ECONOMIC EVENT.

>> COMPROMISE IS THE KEY WORD.

A NICE WORD DO HEAR.

>> WE DON'T HEAR IT VERY OFTEN.

I THINK NOW SOME PEOPLE ARE ASKING, WILL THIS CONTINUE?

I THINK IT WILL CONTINUE THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS BECAUSE THEY HAVE BUILT SOME PRETTY BIG STICKS INVOLVED IF CONGRESS DOESN'T GO THROUGH THEN AND MAKE THE APPROPRIATIONS CONSISTENT WITH THIS DEBT CEILING.

>> SO ONE OF THOSE STICKS IS IF THEY DON'T PASS THE APPROPRIATION BILL, THERE IS A 1% CUT ACROSS THE BOARD, INCLUDING DEFENSE, BUT COME ON, 1% IS NOT THAT MUCH.

WOULD THAT BE SUCH A BAD THING IF THEY DIDN'T REACH THAT DEAL?

>> I THINK THAT BIDEN'S ACUMEN, POLITICAL ACUMEN WAS TO BASICALLY MAKE A DEAL WHERE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEAL, HE COMES OUT AS THE WINNER, BUT IN A WAY HE IS SELLING IT AS IF HE DID NOT WIN EVERYTHING HE COULD HAVE.

THAT'S TRUE.

REPUBLICANS GOT THEIR PET PROJECTS.

ONE WAS INCREASING DEFENSE FUNDING.

ANOTHER WAS ATTACK ON THE POOR.

REPUBLICANS GOT THAT.

AND RATIONAL CHOICE CHEERY, THEY CLAWED BACK FUNDING FROM THE I.R.S.

BECAUSE REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT TO PAY THEIR TAXES, THEY HAVE TO SHIELD THEIR DONORS.

WHAT I THINK THOUGH IS GOOD THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DISCUSSED THIS EARLIER, THAT THERE WAS A FEAR THAT HUGE AMOUNTS OF SNAP, YOU KNOW, TANF WOULD BE CUT.

THAT WAS NOT THE CASE.

CBO SAYS NOW THAT THE HOMELESS ARE INCLUDED, THERE WOULD BE A SLIGHT INCREASE IN THE STAMP BENEFITS OVERALL AND I DO THINK THE TRIGGER, IF YOU DON'T PASS THE BILL, THERE WOULD BE AN ACROSS THE BOARD CUT, THE REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT THE 1% CUT EVEN FOR THEIR, YOU KNOW, TO FOR THE DEFENSE.

SO I THINK IT'S A WIN-WIN AND LOSE-LOSE IN THAT SENSE.

>> I DON'T KNOW.

THERE IS A PIECE HERE, ANIRBAN THAT I DISAGREE WITH, AND IF WE THINK IN TERMS OF SCALE, THERE ARE 43 MILLION SNAP BENEFITS OF WHICH VETERANS REPRESENT, ROUGHLY A MILLION.

SO IN TERMS OF SCALE, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE IMPACT IS GOING TO BE AS MINIMAL AS THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION WOULD WANT US TO BELIEVE.

AND SO MY DISAPPOINTMENT HERE IS IN WHAT I BELIEVE TO HAVE BEEN THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S WILLINGNESS TO FEED THE POOR, TO MAGA REPUBLICANS.

BUDGET DEALS WORKING OUT HOW WE ALLOCATE OUR RESOURCES IS AS MUCH ABOUT THE ECONOMY AS IT IS ABOUT OUR MORAL AND ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS AND ULTIMATELY, ABOUT PEOPLE.

AND IN THIS CASE, A DEAL WAS STRUCK ON THE BACKS OF OLDER AMERICANS BECAUSE THE ELIGIBILITY FOR SNAP-- NOT SNAP-- YEAH, SNAP BENEFITS, FOOD STAMPS, WAS RAWZED FROM 49 YEARS OLD TO 54 YEARS OLD AND THERE ARE SOME OTHER PARTS THAT MAKE IT EVEN MORE STRINGENT.

AND AS FOR WELFARE CASH BENEFITS, THERE, TOO, CHANGES WERE MADE SO THAT STATES NOW WILL HAVE A MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TIME JUSTIFYING EXEMPTIONS.

AND SO, AGAIN, THE CBO HAS PROJECTED THAT THESE PARTICULAR CHANGES WILL HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT ON BUDGET DEFICITS AND THERE HAS BEEN CONSISTENT RESEARCH THAT WORK REQUIREMENTS DON'T LEAD TO HIGHER SKILL IN THE WORKPLACE, NOR, FOR THAT MATTER, TO LONG-TERM EMPLOYMENT.

SO HE FED THE POOR TO REPUBLICANS, MAGA REPUBLICANS, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE, WITHOUT A REAL PAYOFF.

AND I FIND THAT TROUBLING.

>> I THINK WE ARE UNIVERSALLY IN AGREEMENT.

WE ARE RELIEVED THE DEBT CEILING THING IS DONE, OKAY, BUT LET'S TAPER OUR ENTHUSIASM FOR BIDEN AS THIS GREAT CENTRIST OR EFFECTIVE PRESIDENT FOR A LOT OF THE REASONS THAT NINA IS GETTING AT.

LAST MONTH THE ECONOMISTS RAN A CONVINCING PIECE POINTING OUT THAT UNEMPLOYMENT AND INFLATION IN THE U.S., BOTH OF THOSE THINGS ARE WORSE THAN THEY ARE IN THE G7 OR EUROPEAN PEERS.

AND THE LAUGHABLY NAMED LAKE EFFECTS REDUCTION ACT WAS SCALED BACK FROM THE 3.5 BILLION BUILD BACK BETTER PROGRAM SCALED BACK BY CENTRIST DEMOCRATS WHO HAVE BUYERS REMORSE.

THIS DEAL DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE WHAT NINA TALKED ABOUT, THE STRUCTURAL DEFICITS WE HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY, THE FACT THAT EXPENSES AND ENTITLEMENTS AND ALL THAT ARE MUCH GREATER THAN OUR REVENUES.

AND SO, YEAH, I'M GLAD THE DEBT DEAL IS DONE, BUT PLEASE... >> CAN I JUST ADD ONE OTHER THING.

THINK ABOUT THE PRECEDENT THAT THIS SETS POLITICALLY BECAUSE WHAT IT SAYS IS, YOU CAN TAKE THE ENTIRE AMERICAN ECONOMY AND OUR WORLD STANDING HOSTAGE AND GET WHAT YOU WANT.

>> THE DEMOCRATS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY AND TOLD THEM YEARS AGO WHEN THEY HAD-- THAT'S RIGHT.

WHEN THEY HAD CONTROL OF BOTH HOUSES THEY SHOULD HAVE ELIMINATED OR RAISED IT.

THEY DIDN'T SO THEY GOT THEMSELVES INTO THIS AND BIDEN DID AS GOOD AS HE COULD HAVE GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

>> YOU SAID THAT ON THIS SHOW.

I REMEMBER.

>> A CONTROVERSIAL PLAN TO CHARGE DRIVERS A HEFTY FEE TO ENTER MANHATTAN'S CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT COULD BEGIN AS EARLY AS NEXT SPRING.

CONGESTION PRICING IS SUPPOSED TO REDUCE CAR AND TRUCK TRAFFIC AND THE POLLUTION THAT COMES WITH IT, AT THE SAME TIME PROVIDING A BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR FOR MASS TRANSIT.

NEW YORK'S PROGRAM WOULD BE THE FIRST IN THE U.S. DRIVING IN THE RESTRICTED ZONE WON'T COME CHEAP-AS MUCH AS 23 DOLLARS DURING RUSH HOUR.

SO, CHAD, THIS IS PROGRAM SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN NEW YORK AND WHAT ABOUT OTHER PLACES, TOO?

>> ONE OF MY REAGAN RANTS ABOUT DEMOCRATS IS THAT THEY'RE OFTEN VERY GOOD AT DIAGNOSING REAL PROBLEMS LIKE GLOBAL WARMING IS BAD, BUT THEY'RE TERRIBLE AT OFFERING PRESCRIPTIONS LIKE BANNING GAS POWERED CARS OR NATURAL GAS AT HOMES.

THE CONGESTION CHARGE, BY CONTRAST, IS GREAT.

THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM IS THAT DRIVING IMPOSES THESE COSTS ON OTHERS IN THE FORM OF POLLUTION AND CONGESTION AND EVEN SAFETY CONCERNS.

THE DRIVERS THEMSELVES DON'T PAY FOR.

THE SOLUTION TO THAT KIND OF PROBLEM IS NOT TO BAN CARS BUT RATHER TO CHARGE A PRICE THAT MAKES DRIVERS PAY FOR THESE COSTS.

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS CONGESTION CHARGE IS GOING TO DO.

IT IS GOING TO INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO DRIVE LESS OFTEN WITHOUT ACTUALLY PROHIBITING THEM FROM DRIVING ALL TOGETHER.

IT'S GREAT.

>> AND I THINK THIS IS AN OLD ECONOMIST.

WHEN YOU HAVE A PRODUCER OR DOING ECONOMIC ACTIVITY WHERE THE SOCIAL COSTS ARE DISTRIBUTED WIDELY BUT THE PRIVATE GAINS ARE FOR YOU, THERE IS EXTERNALLY A PROBLEM THAT CAN BE FIXED WITH TAXES AND CONGESTION PRICING DOES THAT.

CONGESTION TAKES A TOLL, BAD PUN, ON A LOT OF PEOPLE, WHO ARE LIVING IN POORER NEIGHBORHOODS, AND, YOU KNOW, OVERWHELMING STUDY SAYS THAT PEOPLE COMING IN AND OUT OF NEW YORK, ESPECIALLY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, THEY USE THE PUBLIC TRANSPORT, RIGHT?

SO IT'S NOT REALLY HARMING THE LOWER INCOME PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING.

IT'S BELOW 60S STREET.

LONDON DID IT.

FOUND AMAZING RESULTS, STOCKHOLM DID IT.

PARIS DID IT A DIFFERENT WAY.

THEY REICED-- REDUCED YEARS OF CARS COULD GO IN.

2009 CARS VERSUS 2011, SO IN TERMS OF AGE OF CARS.

>> IS THAT BECAUSE OLDER CARS POLLUTE MORE?

>> BECAUSE OLDER CARS DO POLLUTE MORE, THAT'S RIGHT.

IN INDIA, FOR EXAMPLE, MY PARENTS HAVE TO BUY A NEW CAR BECAUSE THAT CAR IS 15 YEARS OLD.

SO THEY HAVE TO DITCH THAT CAR, BUY A NEW CAR BECAUSE IT'S 15 YEARS OLD OTHERWISE IT'S A HEFTY FEE.

MANY CITIES ARE DOING THAT.

IT'S A VERY GOOD MOVE TO THE RIGHT DIRECTION AS LONG AS THERE IS SOME COMPENSATION ASPECT BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE POOR TO DRIVE TO MANHATTAN.

>> I'M IN FAVOR OF CONGESTION PRICING BUT HAVING READ THROUGH THE REPORT, I'M AFRAID THEY'RE NOT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF REAL DYNAMIC PRICING THE WAY UBER DOES.

IT APPEARS THEY'RE GOING TO SET A COUPLE OF PRICES AND THE ONES THEY'RE SAYING ARE $23 PEAK, $17 OFF PEAK AND $12 OVERNIGHT.

WHY NOT SET IT BASED UPON THE ACTUAL LEVEL OF TRAFFIC IN MANHATTAN?

I MEAN $23 MAY NOT BE ENOUGH IN ORDER TO REDUCE TRAFFIC AND IF THERE IS NOBODY ON THE STREETS, WHICH THERE ARE VERY FEW OVERNIGHT, WHY IS THERE EVEN A CHARGE OVERNIGHT?

>> THE CHARGE IS LESS IN THE OVERNIGHT PERIOD BUT...

THE DYNAMIC PRICING-- >> THE DIFFERENTIAL ISN'T ENOUGH.

>> TO PAY MORE THAN $23 A DAY IF YOU LIVE IN NEW JERSEY TO GO ACROSS TO BRIDGE TO GO TO WORK?

>> YES.

USE MASS TRANSIT.

>> DYNAMIC PRICING GAVE US $2,000 TAYLOR SWIFT TICKETS.

>> PEOPLE PAY IT.

HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO PARK IN NEW YORK?

THOSE FOLKS ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT $23 TO DRIVE IN?

WELL, IT COSTS A LOT TO PARK THERE AS WELL.

SO $23 MAY NOT BE ENOUGH.

IT MAY BE TOO MUCH.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS, USE CONGESTION PRICING BUT LET'S USE THE DATA THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO MAKE MORE OPTIMAL PRICING.

>> OKAY.

NOW WE NEED TO MOVE TO OUR As AND FS.

WE ARE GOING TO START NINA WITH YOUR F. >> OKAY, MY F IS IN HERE SOMEWHERE SO I'LL JUST START UNTIL I CAN FIND IT.

MIME GIVING AN F TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS A RISING NUMBER OF FORECLOSURE FILINGS THIS YEAR IN THE SYRACUSE AREA.

IT'S ALMOST ACTUALLY MORE THAN DOUBLE WHAT IT WAS LAST YEAR.

SYRACUSE.COM REPORTS THAT THE AREA'S FORECLOSURE RATE IS ACTUALLY THE 12th HIGHEST IN THE NATION.

ONE ANALYST BLAMED THE PROBLEM ON RISING UNEMPLOYMENT, COVID DELAYS IN PROCESSING THE FILINGS AND ECONOMIC CHALLENGES, BUT THAT BEGS THE QUESTION OF WHY SYRACUSE RANKS NATIONALLY AMONG THE WORST.

AND WE REALLY DO NEED TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS.

>> ANIRBAN.

>> WELL, AS WE PASS THE THREE YEARS SINCE THE MURDER OF GEORGE FLOYD, MY F GOES TO AMERICAN POLICE BRUTALITY AGAINST PEACEFUL AND NON-VIOLENT PROTESTORS WHO WERE PROTESTING AGAINST POLICE BRUTALITY BUT NOW THE LAWSUITS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST AS CITIES ACROSS THE U.S. HAVE AGREED TO PAY OUT A TOTAL OF $60 MILLION IN-- $80 MILLION IN SETTLEMENTS IN 2020 RACIAL PROTESTS AND THE FIGURE IS EXPECTED TO RISE.

>> F, CHAD.

>> I AM AN UNAPOLOGETIC OMNIVORE AND NOBODY WOULD EVER ACCUSE ME OF BEING AN ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVIST BUT I FOUND THIS WEEK'S NEWS THAT EIGHT TEENAGERS KILLED FAYE UPSETTING.

THEY THOUGHT IT WAS A DUCK.

ALSO MY FAMILY USED TO OWN A ROTTWEILER THAT LOOKED LIKE A CROSS BETWEEN A PIG AND A BEAR, THAT DOESN'T GIVE A PERSON THE RIGHT TO BREAK IN, HUNT IT AND THROW IT ON THE GRILL.

THIS CRIME IS WRONG ON SO MANY LEVELS, IT EARNS MY F. >> RICK.

>> MY F GO TO THE NEW YORK STATE THRU-WAY AUTHORITY THAT RECENTLY ANNOUNCED IT WAS RAISING TOLLS BY 5%, EZ PASS USERS TO RAISE $ 150 MILLION MORE NEXT YEAR FOR MAINTENANCE.

BUT A NEW STATE AUDIT FOUND THE AUTHORITY WAS LAX IN TRYING TO COLLECT THE OVER $275 MILLION ALREADY OWED IN UNPAID TOLLS.

COLLECTING JUST HALF OF THIS WOULD MAKE A TOLL INCREASE NECESSARY.

THIS SHOULD BE A CAUTIONARY NOTE OF THOSE OF US THAT WANT CONGESTION PRICING IN NEW YORK.

HOW ARE THEY GOING TO COLLECT THAT.

>> TIME FOR THE As.

AND NINA YORKS A.

>> I'M GOING TO GET FLAK FOR THIS ON THE JOB BUT I'LL BE OKAY BECAUSE I'M TENURED.

KUDOS TO THE ATLANTIC MAGAZINE FOR PUBLISHING AN ARTICLE TITLED THE DEI INDUSTRY NEEDS TO CHECK ITS OWN PRIVILEGE.

THE ARTICLE DETAILED HOW THE INDUSTRY HAS GROWN INTO A MULTI-BILLION-DOLLAR INDUSTRY, EVEN THOUGH MANY OF ITS FANCY TRAINING MODULES CONFERENCES AND ENDLESS SPEECHES ARE NOT ONLY USELESS, BUT COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

THANKS TO THE ATLANTIC'S BOLDNESS AND GUTS, MAYBE WE'LL STOP LEARNING ABOUT DEI AND TALKING ABOUT IT AND, AS THE YOUNG FOLKS SAY, MAYBE WE'LL START BEING ABOUT IT.

>> ANIRBAN.

>> MY A GOES TO THE OVERLOOKED SERIES OF NEW YORK TIMES, IT'S A SERIES OF OBITUARIES ABOUT REMARKABLE PEOPLE WHOSE DEATHS BEGINNING IN 1851 WENT UNREPORTED IN THE TIMES.

ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF MY LOVE FOR CHESS, IT GOES TO THE SELF TRAINED CHESS PLAYER FROM THE BRITISH INDIA WHO TOOK THE WORLD BY STORM IN THE 20s AND 30S, CASA BLANCA DESCRIBED HIM IN HIS WRITINGS AS A GENIUS.

>> CHAD, YOUR A.

>> MY A GOES TO MARY MOTHER OF OUR SAVIOR PARISH NOTRE DAME SCHOOLS IN UTICA STARTING ON JULY 1, YOU WILL BE SERVED BY FATHER JACE AN HAGE, A YOUNG DYNAMIC PRIEST.

IF YOU ARE IN UTICA AND IT HAS BEEN A WHILE, GIVE HIM A CHANCE.

>> AND RICK.

>> MY A GOES TO TED LASSO, THE COMEDY ABOUT AMERICAN COLLEGE FOOTBALL COACH HIRED TO COACH AN ENGLISH SOCCER TEAM HAD ITS SEASON AND LIKELY SERIES FINALE THIS WEDNESDAY.

IT USED HUMOR, GREAT WRITING, GREAT ACTING, WONDERFUL POP REFERENCES AND AN INCREDIBLE SOUNDTRACK AND PUT TOGETHER AN UPLIFTING HOPEFUL AND OPTIMISTIC SHOW.

>> A TO TED LASSO.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

FOR COMMENTS YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO VIEW THE SHOW AGAIN YOU CAN VIEW IT ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FOR ALL OF US AT IVORY TOWER, HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.