Photo from watertown.gov
Supreme Court could Weigh In on Watertown’s Most Absurd AI Scandal
By Hans Wilder Watertown NY
Hold onto your snowblowers, Watertown! The latest chapter in our town’s saga of small-town absurdity might just make its way to the Supreme Court. That’s right—the highest court in the land might be forced to weigh in on a case so ridiculous, it’s practically a sitcom plot. At the center of this drama? Our RINO mayor (yes, she exists, allegedly) and her refusal to read emails she suspects were written using ChatGPT.
Let’s break this down because there’s a lot to unpack. The mayor specifically said she’ll ignore emails written with ChatGPT. Not AI in general, just ChatGPT. So, what does that mean? If Councilman Cliff Olney switches to GROK 2 or some other AI tool, is that suddenly okay? Or does she think AI only counts if it comes from OpenAI’s servers? What about Grammarly, autocorrect, or predictive text? Is she going to ignore emails with well-placed commas or coherent sentences because they might’ve been optimized by technology?
Now, here’s the kicker. By singling out ChatGPT, the mayor didn’t just put her foot in her mouth—she crammed the whole leg in there. Had she said “I’m against AI-generated content,” she’d at least have a flimsy defense. But no! She went for the specific brand name. That’s like saying, “I’ll eat any pizza except one from Cams,” while standing at counter at Bernardo’s. It’s the kind of selective outrage that’s not only baffling but wildly impractical.
And let’s talk about the hypocrisy here. If Cliff Olney had graduated from Harvard and used AI to write his emails, would the mayor even care? Or is this more about the fact that it’s Olney—a guy from Watertown who actually gives a damn about his constituents? Would she dismiss an AI-polished email from a Northside resident, too compared to some one from Paddock street? Because if she’s using stereotypes to decide whose emails she’ll read, we’re moving from absurd to unconstitutional. The Northside, by the way, has some pretty tech-savvy folks and lots of run down houses. Don’t let the sunken manhole covers fool you. ” My poor car”.
And speaking of stereotypes, what if an AI-written email came from someone she trusted? Say, a local business leader or someone with a fancy title or even former mayor—would she scrutinize their messages for signs of machine learning? Or does this selective outrage only apply to people she’s already decided to dislike?
Here’s where it gets legally dicey. By refusing to read emails based on a vague suspicion they might be written by AI, the mayor is essentially discriminating against a form of communication. That’s not just unethical; it’s potentially unconstitutional. Emails are a modern form of speech, and if she’s cherry-picking whose words she’ll engage with based on arbitrary biases, she’s infringing on the rights of her constituents and there representatives. The First Amendment doesn’t have an AI exception.
And let’s not forget the practical implications. AI is everywhere. Your phone uses it. Your email client uses it. Your car’s GPS uses it. The app she probably checks every morning to see how bad the snow’s going to be is running on AI. Hell, even the Watertown MEME page uses it for there less then great MEME’s. Drawing the line at ChatGPT, the mayor’s essentially admitted she doesn’t understand the technology she’s trying to police. That’s like banning microwaves because you think they’re powered by witchcraft.
The Supreme Court’s potential involvement here isn’t just about Watertown’s mayoral antics; it’s about setting a precedent for how public officials interact with technology. Can a mayor—or anyone in government—refuse to engage with constituents or there representatives because of the tools they use to communicate? If so, where does it end? Are we going to see governors ignoring tweets because they were scheduled through ZiTTTER.com or Senators refusing to read press releases written with Microsoft Word?
And while we’re at it, let’s address the real issue: This isn’t about AI. It’s about power and control. The mayor doesn’t like Cliff Olney, so she’s using ChatGPT as an excuse to dismiss him. But here’s the thing—everyone uses AI. It’s not just the future; it’s the present. Ignoring it doesn’t make it go away. It just makes you look out of touch.
So, Madam Mayor, if you’re reading this… and I hope you are (even if ChatGPT had a hand in writing it)… do yourself a favor. Learn about the technology you’re so quick to condemn. Understand that AI isn’t the enemy. It’s a tool—one that could actually make your job easier. And while you’re at it, read Cliff Olney’s emails. Not because they’re AI-enhanced, but because they’re from someone who cares enough to send them.
Mr. Olney’s record as a citizen and as a Council member is far from stellar. I agree that conflict over who and how memos were written is a waste of time and perhaps deal of the reality of 21st century communication. Give the mayor a break, for now she is learning.
I think The author spelt “There “wrong on purpose or AI aint all its cracked up to be LOL
It’s rather comical that this is being posted and elevated on Newzjunky. Some of the folks who think they have power over this town aren’t even attempting to hide their bias anymore.
The councilman is allowed to use AI but does he really need to use it to communicate with the people who elected him? Is he not capable of speaking directly to us in a genuine way?
Anybody who thinks that Olney stands up for the common man has convinced themselves to vote for someone who has no concept of budgeting.
It will be a 6 to 3 vote at scotus
Good at predictions, i,am.
Who is writing these articles? High school kids?
Nothing like being a biased reporter is there Hans