As the holiday season approaches, the spirit of giving shines brightest among those who truly understand the value of community. This year, on December 20th, Jon Taylor, the compassionate founder of Assistory Outreach Services, brought joy and warmth to the residents of Tanner Garden Senior Apartment Complex south of downtown Phoenix for the third consecutive year. With his amazing team of volunteers by his side, Jon organized a heartfelt Senior Assist Day, dedicated to celebrating and uplifting the lives of our beloved senior citizens.

A Celebration of Community and Care

“Senior Assist Day is all about reaching out to one of our most precious commodities, seniors,” Jon said warmly during the event. For many older adults, the holidays can be a time of loneliness, especially when family is far away or when mobility issues prevent them from gathering with friends. Recognizing the potential for increased feelings of isolation and depression during this festive season, Jon and his team made it their mission to ensure that no one feels forgotten.

On this cheerful day, Tanner Garden was filled with laughter, love, and joy as volunteers came together to provide gifts, food, and live music. The air was alive with the sounds of celebration, serving as a reminder that holiday spirit is best when shared.

Building on Success Year After Year

Reflecting on the event, Jon expressed excitement about the growth of Senior Assist Day, stating, “Each year just gets better and better.” In only three years, the event has already grown significantly, and Jon has plans to expand even further in 2025. With hopes of increasing participation from the resident community, his goal is to provide gifts for at least 124 residents next year.

“This year we had 77 participants, and I think we can do more!” Jon said with determination. “Sometimes it’s about overcoming hesitations, and I’d love to offer some added services that they’ve requested, like haircuts and nail polishing for the ladies.”

Community Partnerships Make a Difference

Jon was quick to express gratitude for the invaluable partnerships that have helped bring this event to life. Walmart has been a significant sponsor for the past two years, generously providing delicious meals for the seniors. “I couldn’t have done it without them,” Jon stated, honoring the store’s commitment to the community.

Food for the event was provided and served by Kurt Riske, along with his assistant, from Los Sombreros, a local Mexican restaurant known for its elevated and contemporary-casual Mexican dishes.

In addition, he gave a shout-out to Best Buy for their support and recognized the contributions of his volunteers, who consistently show up with genuine enthusiasm and dedication. “I’m fortunate to have a wonderful team of 10 to 15 volunteers who step up at a moment’s notice,” he said.

Advertisement

A Day to Remember

As the event unfolded, residents danced to holiday tunes, enjoyed mouthwatering treats, and opened thoughtfully curated gifts filled with love and care. The smiles on their faces and the joy in their laughter told a beautiful story of connection and community spirit.

Jon Taylor is more than just a compassionate individual; he is an inspiration to us all, reminding us of the importance of caring for our senior citizens. By creating spaces where they feel valued and celebrated, he continues to forge stronger community bonds, paving the way for a brighter future for our elders.

As we wrap up another successful year of Senior Assist Day, we can’t wait to see what Jon and Assistory Outreach Services will bring to Tanner Garden and beyond in 2025. Together, let’s keep spreading the cheer and reminding our seniors that they are truly loved and cherished. After all, they are our most precious commodity!

If you would like to get involved or support this noble cause, consider reaching out to Assistory Outreach Services to become part of Jon’s volunteering team or to help in securing sponsorships and gifts for future events. Your contributions can make all the difference in bringing joy to those who have given us so much.

For more information about the Assistory Organization, check out this link: https://assistoryoutreachservices.com

The Bridge is a section of the STM Daily News Blog meant for diversity, offering real news stories about bona fide community efforts to perpetuate a greater good. The purpose of The Bridge is to connect the divides that separate us, fostering understanding and empathy among different groups. By highlighting positive initiatives and inspirational actions, The Bridge aims to create a sense of unity and shared purpose. This section brings to light stories of individuals and organizations working tirelessly to promote inclusivity, equality, and mutual respect. Through these narratives, readers are encouraged to appreciate the richness of diverse perspectives and to participate actively in building stronger, more cohesive communities.

https://stmdailynews.com/the-bridge

Advertisement

Leo S. Lo, University of New Mexico

Artificial intelligence can be used in countless ways – and the ethical headaches it raises are countless, too.

Consider “adult content creators” – not necessarily the first field that comes to mind. In 2024, there was a surge in AI-generated influencers on Instagram: fake models with faces made by AI, attached to stolen photos and videos of real models’ bodies. Not only did the original content creators not consent to having their images used, but they were not compensated.

Across industries, workers encounter more immediate ethical questions about whether to use AI every day. In a trial by the U.K.-based law firm Ashurst, three AI systems dramatically sped up document review but missed subtle legal nuances that experienced lawyers would catch. Similarly, journalists must balance AI’s efficiency for summarizing background research with the rigor required by fact-checking standards.

These examples highlight the growing tension between innovation and ethics. What do AI users owe the creators whose work forms the backbone of those technologies? How do we navigate a world where AI challenges the meaning of creativity – and humans’ role in it?

As a dean overseeing university libraries, academic programs and the university press, I witness daily how students, staff and faculty grapple with generative AI. Looking at three different schools of ethics can help us go beyond gut reactions to address core questions about how to use AI tools with honesty and integrity.

Rights and duties

At its core, deontological ethics asks what fundamental duties people have toward one another – what’s right or wrong, regardless of consequences.

Applied to AI, this approach focuses on basic rights and obligations. Through this lens, we must examine not only what AI enables us to do, but what responsibilities we have toward other people in our professional communities.

Advertisement

For instance, AI systems often learn by analyzing vast collections of human-created work, which challenges traditional notions of creative rights. A photographer whose work was used to train an AI model might question whether their labor has been appropriated without fair compensation – whether their basic ownership of their own work has been violated.

On the other hand, deontological ethics also emphasizes people’s positive duties toward others – responsibilities that certain AI programs can assist in fulfilling. The nonprofit Tarjimly aims to use an AI-powered platform to connect refugees with volunteer translators. The organization’s AI tool also gives real-time translation, which the human volunteers can revise for accuracy.

This dual focus on respecting creators’ rights while fulfilling duties to other people illustrates how deontological ethics can guide ethical AI use.

AI’s implications

Another approach comes from consequentialism, a philosophy that evaluates actions by their outcomes. This perspective shifts focus from individuals’ rights and responsibilities to AI’s broader effects. Do the potential boons of generative AI justify the economic and cultural impact? Is AI advancing innovation at the expense of creative livelihoods?

This ethical tension of weighing benefits and harms drives current debates – and lawsuits. Organizations such as Getty Images have taken legal action to protect human contributors’ work from unauthorized AI training. Some platforms that use AI to create images, such as DeviantArt and Shutterstock, are offering artists options to opt out or receive compensation, a shift toward recognizing creative rights in the AI era.

The implications of adopting AI extend far beyond individual creators’ rights and could fundamentally reshape creative industries. Publishing, entertainment and design sectors face unprecedented automation, which could affect workers along the entire production pipeline, from conceptualization to distribution.

These disruptions have sparked significant resistance. In 2023, for example, labor unions for screenwriters and actors initiated strikes that brought Hollywood productions to a halt.

A consequentialist approach, however, compels us to look beyond immediate economic threats, or individuals’ rights and responsibilities, to examine AI’s broader societal impact. From this wider perspective, consequentialism suggests that concerns about social harms must be balanced with potential societal benefits.

Advertisement

Sophisticated AI tools are already transforming fields such as scientific research, accelerating drug discovery and climate change solutions. In education, AI supports personalized learning for struggling students. Small businesses and entrepreneurs in developing regions can now compete globally by accessing professional-level capabilities once reserved for larger enterprises.

Even artists need to weigh the pros and cons of AI’s impact: It’s not just negative. AI has given rise to new ways to express creativity, such as AI-generated music and visual art. These technologies enable complex compositions and visuals that might be challenging to produce by hand – making it an especially valuable collaborator for artists with disabilities.

Character for the AI era

Virtue ethics, the third approach, asks how using AI shapes who users become as professionals and people. Unlike approaches that focus on rules or consequences, this framework centers on character and judgment.

Recent cases illustrate what’s at stake. A lawyer’s reliance on AI-generated legal citations led to court sanctions, highlighting how automation can erode professional diligence. In health care, discovering racial bias in medical AI chatbots forced providers to confront how automation might compromise their commitment to equitable care.

These failures reveal a deeper truth: Mastering AI requires cultivating sound judgment. Lawyers’ professional integrity demands that they verify AI-generated claims. Doctors’ commitment to patient welfare requires questioning AI recommendations that might perpetuate bias. Each decision to use or reject AI tools shapes not just immediate outcomes but professional character.

Individual workers often have limited control over how their workplaces implement AI, so it is all the more important that professional organizations develop clear guidelines. What’s more, individuals need space to maintain professional integrity within their employers’ rules to exercise their own sound judgment.

Beyond asking “Can AI do this task?” organizations should consider how its implementation could affect workers’ professional judgment and practice. Right now, technology is evolving faster than collective wisdom in using it, making deliberate reflection and virtue-driven practice more essential than ever.

Charting a path forward

Each of these three ethical frameworks illuminates different aspects of our society’s AI dilemma.

Advertisement

Rights-based thinking highlights our obligations to creators whose work trains AI systems. Consequentialism reveals both the broader benefits of AI democratization and its potential threats, including to creative livelihoods. Virtue ethics shows how individual choices about AI shape not just outcomes but professional character.

Together, these perspectives suggest that ethical AI use requires more than new guidelines. It requires rethinking how creative work is valued.

The debate about AI often feels like a battle between innovation and tradition. But this framing misses the real challenge: developing approaches that honor both human creativity and technological progress and allow them to enhance each other. At its core, that balance depends on values.

Leo S. Lo, Dean and Professor, College of University Libraries and Learning Sciences, University of New Mexico

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.

Advertisement

https://stmdailynews.com/

Richard White, Stanford University

I’m a Gilded Age historian who has drawn parallels between our current moment and the late 19th century, two periods known for staggering economic inequality and sweeping technological change.

But much of the coverage of the murder of Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, and Luigi Mangione, the man accused of killing him, has given me pause.

As many journalists and pundits would have it, both Thompson and Mangione appear to have wandered into the New York borough of Manhattan from the late 19th century.

In their interpretation, the two Gilded Ages are no longer running on parallel tracks. They have collided, mixing their occupants and baggage into a chaotic mess.

When I and most other historians talk about parallels between the Gilded Age and today, the comparisons are structural. They reflect broad conditions affecting millions of people. It’s when pundits pull particular examples from the past to explain the actions of individuals today that trouble arises.

We haven’t been here before

New York Times columnist Bret Stephens casts Thompson as a character out of a Horatio Alger novel: a working-class hero who pulled himself up by the bootstraps. Also writing in The New York Times, sociologist Zeynip Tufekci comes close to making Luigi Mangione a reincarnation of Alexander Berkman, the anarchist who tried to assassinate industrialist Henry Clay Frick. Over in The New Yorker, Dhruv Khullar suggests that in its arbitrariness and callousness, the prototype for the U.S. medical system, which Mangione excoriated in his manifesto, originated somewhere in the Gilded Age.

Today’s historians and journalists obviously think the past has much to teach their fellow citizens. And their motives are sensible: They want to push back against the idea that the past is irrelevant, that everything important has occurred in the past 15 minutes – a view reflected in a favorite phrase of President-elect Donald Trump to describe whatever crisis du jour is afflicting the United States: “We’ve never seen anything like it.”

Advertisement

So comparisons between two periods can serve as a brake on hasty claims that everything has changed and that the current moment is unprecedented. But in my view, specific comparisons often make a categorical mistake. They substitute modern beliefs and judgments for those of people in the past.

In the immediate aftermath of the murder, Tufekci wrote that “The currents we are seeing are expressions of something more fundamental. We’ve been here before. And it wasn’t pretty.”

Wait, slow down: “We” have not been here before. The major, most obvious – and virtually always ignored – difference between the Gilded Age and our own time is that we did not live in it. None of us were alive in the late 19th century. The people who were alive back then didn’t think like us or act like us. Finding structural similarities does not turn writers into Nostradamus, able to discern the signs and predict the future.

It is all too easy to use the past as a tool for driving home lessons derived from modern beliefs or ideologies. Without knowing much about either Thompson or Mangione – let alone anarchists or Horatio Alger heroes – Mangione becomes the equivalent of a 19th-century avenger of the working class, while Thompson is a modern “Ragged Dick,” rising to his post through pluck and hard work.

Most popular and political appeals to history are not just superficial, they are also quite ahistorical. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the courts.

Jonathan Gienapp’s new and brilliant book, “Against Constitutional Originalism,” eviscerates what he describes as the sloppiness, ahistoricism and anachronisms of the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative members, who often justify their decisions by invoking what the nation’s founders intended. According to Gienapp, their core sin is simple: They are ventriloquists putting their modern ideas in the founders’ mouths and claiming they have recovered original meanings.

Emerging from the morass

This ahistorical thinking runs across the political spectrum. It comes from asking the wrong questions, and thinking that structural similarities produce roughly identical outcomes.

Advertisement

The two periods share more than soaring inequality and vast technological change. There were attacks on racism and resurgent racism; mass immigration and backlash against it; frequent swings in party control; economic booms and busts; a dearth of bold leadership; failures in governance; and outbursts of violence.

Both eras also experienced declines in lifespans, environmental deterioration that has affected health, and the efforts of the well-to-do to seal themselves off from the diseases of the less fortunate.

But often left out is the fact that the Gilded Age confronted these issues; it was also, paradoxically, a period of reform. Beginning at the end of the 19th century, lifespans increased, childhood mortality fell, epidemic diseases declined, and public health produced remarkable results.

Now, that trajectory has reversed. Death and disease are at the heart of the murder of Brian Thompson, who was on his way to meet with investors hoping to profit from a company whose calculated decisions sentenced some people to suffer for the gain of others.

Useful questions might be: How did the Gilded Age escape its crises? And why did solutions that seemed to gradually improve health and well-being for most people over generations cease to work? How did UnitedHealthcare, the people who profit from it and those eager to invest in it come to be?

There is a history there.

Richard White, Professor of American History, Stanford University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement

STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.

https://stmdailynews.com/