To the Editor:
I don’t know what is going on with the Pioneer. Your site is huge benefit to our community, and I visit almost every day. Recently, coverage seems to want to stoke controversy, often where none exists. Or to make it look like something is nefarious, when it is not.
Today’s article on AI is a case in point. The editorial breathlessly complains that “However, as with other states, the details of the council’s composition, deliberations, and recommendations have not been comprehensively communicated to the public.”
The governor’s press release about the council came out TODAY! I don’t know if your writer understands how state advisory bodies work. It will take a bit of time to determine who the 15 members will be, ask if they want to serve, vet them, and make the appointments. More time will be required for them to deliberate and make recommendations. How in heck does Ms. Mico expect that the councils composition and recommendations will be public on the day the council formation is announced? Are we expecting them to just use ChatGPT to determine their findings?
This makes no sense, and the least Ms. Mico could do is to link to the Governor’s actual press release, rather than cast vague aspersions on the not-yet-appointed council’s “transparency.” Or did ChapGPT write this article?
Sincerely,
Jenny Greenleaf
Manzanita
