Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
AI guardrails are being built right now
Re: “Move fast. Break the world. AI shattering shared reality” (Page A6, March 5).
Tom Debley’s March 5 article is well-intentioned, but its argument ignores evidence I have seen with my own eyes.
I am a junior at Burlingame High School. Last year, I was chosen as one of two U.S. students to attend the NextGen AI Summit in Naples, where our proposals were presented to G20 education ministers. The people in that room were not Frankenstein abandoning their creation. They debated standards for AI accountability and the protection of young people.
Is AI regulated enough? Not yet. But thoughtful people are working hard to get this right and suggesting otherwise ignores the policymakers and students doing that work.
Mr. Debley writes that “machines cannot carry moral responsibility — that burden and privilege remain ours.” I agree. The rooms where people are building the rules to govern AI are open to new voices. I know because I was one of them in Naples.
Caroline Rafferty
Burlingame
New tax structure could close S.J. deficit
Re: “Mahan fighting for core services” (Page A1, March 11).
It is puzzling that nowhere in this article is there a mention of the fact that San Jose, despite being home to a number of tech giants and other wealthy companies, has one of the lowest business tax rates in California.
San Jose businesses are assessed a very low flat fee rather than a percentage of revenue, as is the case in San Francisco and elsewhere. Proposition 13, as well as state constitutional constraints, make it very difficult for cities to raise revenues, even as fiscal obligations and costs continue to climb. A business tax more in line with San Francisco’s or Los Angeles’ would do the city a lot of good.
The mayor and the City Council should make common cause with other Peninsula cities with similarly low business taxes (Santa Clara, Cupertino, Palo Alto, et al.) and strive for a tax structure that benefits all people.
Christopher Connery
Santa Cruz
Can candidates do more than blame Trump?
Candidate Tom Steyer is running another misleading ad. It shows President Trump and a commercial property and refers to the “Trump tax loophole.”
However, what the ad is really referring to are our state’s Proposition 13 and Proposition 19, which give us lower property taxes on homes and commercial properties, like apartments. State tax law allows owners of commercial properties to sell up to 49% of their properties and keep the original low tax valuation. Trump has nothing to do with California state tax law.
I wish all candidates would spend less on “Fighting Trump” and more on telling us, specifically, how they will lower our costs for gasoline, electricity, water and housing. That is what we need from our new governor.
Brian McCormick
San Jose
Diversity requires equal application of justice
Living in the South Bay, it’s clear that our communities are shaped by people from many different backgrounds. Cities like San Jose and nearby areas thrive because of that diversity.
However, it also raises an important question: Do our institutions treat everyone equally? Immigrants and minority communities contribute greatly to the culture and economy of this region, yet many still face barriers that affect their opportunities and how policies impact their daily lives.
Sociologists often point out that institutions, such as the legal system, and public policy influence people’s opportunities in ways we may not always notice. Recognizing these challenges is not about dividing people but about strengthening fairness.
If we truly value equality in diverse communities like ours, then justice must be something that applies consistently to everyone.
Ashley Alejandre
San Jose
Regime change needed here, not in Iran
The regime change Americans should be discussing is not in Iran. It is here in the United States.
Look at what this president has done and what he promised but has not delivered. The country is moving backward. Costs are rising, economic security is weakening and the credibility the United States once carried abroad has declined. Our alliances are strained, and our standing has eroded.
At home, federal forces have been deployed into American cities and streets. Abroad, the administration has opened tensions and confrontations on several fronts.
These decisions have consequences for Americans here at home. Military conflict abroad often means higher energy prices, economic instability and more pressure on families already struggling with rising costs in places like Silicon Valley.
When a nation moves toward conflict, Americans deserve a clear explanation from their president. Instead, there has been none. That silence speaks for itself.
Mark Grzan
Morgan Hill
Iran war’s ambitions reach back home
Re: “Iran war putting at risk key infrastructure that supplies the world with oil and gas” (Page A3, March 10).
The war on Iran is aimed at more than simply disarming the regime or initiating regime change which, if it succeeded, would most probably lead to a failed state and fertile ground for supporting ongoing internal and international terrorism.
It is also aimed at creating a rationale for responding to any resulting acts of terrorism occurring on U.S. soil, any public demonstrations which result in any form of violence whether initiated by opponents to the war, anarchists or provocateurs. Additionally, it could serve as a justification for declaring a national emergency which would be used as justification for declaring some form of martial law, suspending some civil rights and interfering with or suspending national elections.
Steve Baron
Cupertino