Skip to content

O.HENRY ENDING

Fleischmann for President!

A man with real intelligence

By Richie Zweigenhaft

Not long ago, one of my geezer b-ball buddies sent me an article about pick-up basketball. I liked it, and I also liked the 31 comments that followed from various readers. I decided to add my own. A few minutes after I submitted it, I received a message telling me it had been denied — either because of inappropriate wording or because I had otherwise not followed the guidelines. I was told I could appeal. So I did, asking what I naively thought was a person just why it had been rejected. 

Too long? I asked. Or was it because I had (shamelessly) included a URL promoting my book about our pickup basketball game? Or was it some other transgression (I was unable to find their guidelines online)? Ten minutes later, I was told my appeal had been rejected, and my question about the cause of the rejection remained unanswered. 

Stubbornly, I attempted to submit my comment twice more, first taking out the URL, and then shortening the comment. Both times, it was rejected. Then I removed “geezer” and, presto, it was accepted. The term “geezer,” which I use affectionately, clearly was not acceptable based on the algorithm. It dawned on me that I had been “communicating” with a machine. 

Subsequently, I had a radically different experience when I submitted an email to Phillip Fleischmann, the director of Greensboro’s Parks & Recreation. I addressed a fairly long (and somewhat rambling) message to him, asking him to forward it to the right person. The gist?  Just some observations I had made on my regular bike rides about the tennis courts, ball fields, basketball courts and the skateboard park I frequently ride by. It also included a query about the removal of planted areas along Buffalo Creek, plus about some renovations near the Latham Park tennis courts. And then I boldly suggested that some pickleball courts be added to the changes taking place in Latham Park. I even included a parenthetical comment informing him that, in 1975, as I was about to leave for a vacation, I had sent the Parks & Recreation department a letter encouraging them to build a basketball court in my Lake Daniel neighborhood. When I got back three weeks later, there was a court.   

I had no idea if I would hear back this time either from a human or via artificial intelligence.

The response was quite human, and more than I could have hoped for. He responded to every issue I raised, with explanations about the tennis courts — why some had pickleball lines but others did not — the reason for the removal of the planted areas along Buffalo Creek, the department’s hopes to increase the number of pickleball courts, and why some basketball courts allow for full court and others don’t. He even congratulated me for my 1975 letter: “Seeing the use of the basketball court at Lake Daniel, it is evident that your suggestion to Parks & Recreation in the 1970s was an impactful one!”

When I shared this email with a friend, his response was “Fleischmann for President!”

It was reassuring, especially in light of my earlier online experience trading emails with a machine. The incursion of artificial intelligence may be inevitable, and may feel like it is pervasive, so responses like the one I got from Phil Fleischmann are increasingly valuable, especially to geezers like me who still value the printed word — written by humans.