Listen Frontier

Frontier: Hey everyone. Welcome to another episode of listen frontier today. I am joined by Hart Brown, the president of artificial intelligence and transformation at Saxum. He also helped author Governor Stitt's Artificial Intelligence strategy for the state. Thanks for joining us today. I wondered if you would tell us a little bit first about yourself, your background and how you got involved in this project and in this area.

Hart Brown: You bet. Coming out of school, I was doing a lot of work in what we now refer to as predictive analysis, so algorithmic based decision making, using math to help understand what's likely to happen and then make the best decisions you possibly can.

I had a number of people come to me and say Hart, can you build an artificial intelligence system that can do what you do on paper in real time? I answered. I said let's find out. It sounds really interesting. At that time, there was really only one system that anybody could really use, and that was IBM Watson. And so I built an artificial intelligence system on top of IBM Watson to be able to leverage this algorithm in real time. And got very good success.

Frontier: So let's talk about the governor's report a little bit. The document calls itself a forward thinking approach, which is right means, in a lot of ways, that some of it is aspirational in a sense that we're at a point where we don't exactly know where we're going to end up with AI. What are some of the concrete things that Oklahoma could do in the next six months, 12 months that are realistic to embrace AI better or better understand how it’s shaping Oklahoma?

Hart Brown: It’s really important to understand that we're really talking about a longer timeline. So some elements of that are going to happen closer to a two year time frame. Some may be a little bit further out now. We're transitioning from a period of time where artificial intelligence really kind of felt like a toy. It was interesting, it was fun. We all started to use it. We downloaded the apps. We were making pictures and lots of different things. Oklahoma is in a relatively low unemployment environment, meaning it's hard for Oklahoma employers to find good people to hire, and so with that, let's use the technology. Let's grow the businesses as quickly as we can by leveraging that in a responsible and reasonable way.

Frontier: Is it even possible at this point to have guardrails, or to know what the guardrails would even be? At some point, it will start to affect people's jobs. You mentioned low unemployment, people having difficulty filling some of these positions that maybe AI could replace, but at some point people's jobs will be what's being replaced. And so are there guardrails to protect workers? Or how should people approach that part of the discussion?

Hart Brown: From an economic productivity perspective, I need everybody working and I need everybody using the technology. If the technology replaces people in this ecosystem, I don't get the economic value out of the system at the end of the day. And really what we're seeing in the next two to three years, whichever country maximizes its potential related to artificial intelligence, is likely to be the dominant economic country for the next 75 to 100 years. So first and foremost, I need everybody in the ecosystem being productive.

It doesn't make sense for us to have a broad based disruption of the employment environment, because we don't win at the end of the day. We won't be the dominant economic country. So I'm very optimistic that if we do see that turbulence, that we have enough opportunities to resolve that before it really becomes a problem.

Frontier: Looking at the strategy and at this report, if we revisit it in five or 10 years, what would success look like in Oklahoma, and what would count as a failure that Oklahoma should be willing to try to avoid?

Hart Brown: Five years is a great horizon. What I would love to be able to say is that Oklahoma is at the forefront of artificial intelligence and advanced technology for the country and the world, which absolutely we have that that opportunity, I would say, from an economic perspective, that we've grown our economy by 40% here in the state overall by being able to do This, and that is a benefit to every single individual here in the state. So those two things, I think, are incredibly important for us moving forward, and we can accomplish that in a five year window.

Immigration detention usually happens out of public view — inside private prisons, through sealed court filings, and far from scrutiny. But in Oklahoma, those cases are starting to surface.

In recent months, immigrants who’ve lived in the U.S. for years — some for decades — have been jailed for months without bond hearings, even when they have no criminal convictions and deep ties to their communities. Their only path to release has been through habeas corpus petitions filed in federal court.

At the same time, Oklahoma is becoming a growing hub for immigration detention as private prison companies expand their footprint.

Our reporter, Ari Fie, has been digging into these cases to understand who’s being detained, why this is happening now, and what it means for due process. I spoke with her about what she found.

For the past several months, Frontier reporter Clifton Adcock has been digging into one of the fastest-moving — and least transparent — developments in Oklahoma: the rapid rise of data centers. These facilities promise big investment, but they also bring enormous demands for power and water, and much of the planning has happened out of public view.

In this week’s Q&A, Clifton walks us through how he pieced this story together: from tracking down hard-to-find utility filings to decoding dense regulatory documents and uncovering data center projects that weren’t publicly disclosed. He also talks about the challenges of explaining highly technical issues in a way readers can understand, and what surprised him most as he followed the money, energy, and incentives behind Oklahoma’s data-center boom.

Read the story: Oklahoma’s data center boom is about to hit the grid — and your power bill

Frontier: We spoke back in the spring about the cellphone bill you ran that would remove cell phones from classrooms. Catch our listeners up on where that stands today. 

Seifried: It’s been in effect for almost two months in Oklahoma, and the results and the feedback have just been amazing. I heard from schools and administrators early on, talking about the lunchrooms being louder and the hallways being more crowded. My favorite recent anecdote is library books are being checked out at a higher frequency than at this point last year, so a lot of really positive feedback.

Frontier: That kind of leads us into what we're talking about today, which is you have an interim study about technology in schools. So tell us a little bit about that study and what you hope to learn from it.

Seifried: Yeah, this study sort of really dovetails off of my work on removing cell phones, because as I went around the state and talked about it over the last two years, I would meet with parents who were concerned about the use of screens and laptops in their child's classrooms. And they would question if learning was happening, or how much students are using screens. And at first, I sort of didn't want to become the anti-screens girl. But I think it's a good conversation to have. 

This study got to be a little bit more academic. We got into the neuroscience of how we learn and or how we don't learn. I also serve as chair of the technology committee, so I sort of get to wear these two really fascinating hats. As we're trying so desperately to increase our academic achievement, I want us to make sure that we're doing the right things. And maybe the right thing isn't the new and shiny technology or the new and shiny software, or this platform that promises the moon.

Frontier: That’s not only a conversation that's taking place as it relates to schools. Right now, what's the main conversation we’re having in the state? It's AI, it's about data centers, the impact of this technology and this industry. And there is that discussion among adults, too, about the use of AI as a tool. Is it productive to give your creative juices to a computer as opposed to just doing this yourself? How much of our brain power are we giving over to computers? And does that, in a sense, make us less human? You have mentioned technology and how it should be used, with caution, as a teaching tool. And I just kind of wondered at this point in this process,  what evidence would you want to see before deciding if a specific type of technological platform or in-class technology is truly improving learning outcomes?

Seifried: One of the main things that we really took away was there are a lot of things that can improve educational outcomes. Like the air conditioning, or just a little bit of extra tutoring that kind of moves the needle. But what we should be asking, really, is not, does this move the needle, but does this move the needle better than something else. So for example, if we spend $10 million on this software across the state of Oklahoma, is that going to move the needle for our students more than taking that $10 million and investing it into our teachers or our reading specialists or giving stipends to teachers who are just crushing it in the classroom?

AI is an amazing tool. But you have to master those foundational educational blocks, right? You have to be able to do the hard thing first. One of our speakers likened it to learning how to drive. If you learn to drive a stick shift, and then you go to automatic, no problem. But if you start with an automatic and you go stick, you have so much more difficulty going backwards and mastering those topics. And so I just wondered, do these softwares and platforms and AI chat bots really help us learn more than a quality teacher sitting down and working with your student?

Frontier: You're essentially talking about opportunity cost here. If you’ve got $10 million to add some technology to classrooms, could that $10 million get you better results in another way? You’ve mentioned investing in some proven supports, like reading specialists,or upping teacher pay, instead of this theoretical technology that might possibly make something in the classroom better. Do you think that maybe there's too much focus or too much spending on tech for classrooms, and not enough focus and not enough spending on more traditional support systems for students?

Seifried: That's a really hard question. But that was my point – I want to start talking about it, because I want to start framing these discussions and investments. I've been on the Appropriations Committee, and everyone has the best shiny thing, that this will be the silver bullet, and this will be the unicorn. And I think sometimes just the old fashioned way (is best.) And so I started to take that same principle into spending. Sometimes just hard work, or doing it the old fashioned way, is actually the right way. 

Frontier: I think that's probably a good lesson for everyone in every walk of life. Change is not necessarily always synonymous with progress. So being willing to take a critical look, even backwards, is always helpful. And you mentioned AI in your last response, and I want to talk about that a little bit, because when it comes to AI in classrooms,  the toothpaste is sort of out of the tube at this point. But do you see the potential for AI to enhance teaching and learning? Or at this point, are you more concerned about its risks and limitations?

Seifried: Can I answer yes to both of those? We had people at this study who didn't all agree on policy or on their approach to technology. But we had one teacher talk about her previous district, that software where she was able to monitor what each student was doing on their laptop in their class, in her classroom. And I thought to myself, we are experiencing a severe teacher shortage. We know that teachers are getting burned out at a higher frequency. So I said how can you possibly teach a classroom and teach a lesson plan and watch each student and observe and see look in their eyes and figure out, okay, this student's getting the lesson. And then also observe some software that's making sure that they're doing what they're supposed to be doing? It's so nuanced, but I think this will be a topic of conversation we'll be talking about for many years.

Frontier: We talked about that a little bit with your cell phone ban bill, that if everyone continues to kick this can down the road, eventually it becomes too late to untie that knot. 

Seifried: There absolutely is a place (for technology and AI,) but it can't replace a teacher. And so we talked a little bit also about how learning should be cognitively demanding. It should be a challenge. And if you put students on computers where it's challenging, and that same computer offers that kind of dopamine hit of like, oh, I can also go and do this application, or I can check my phone … they can kind of just zone out for a little bit and sort of back away from the challenge. That means they’re not progressing and moving forward. There's just sort of that human element that you can't replicate in computers. It just sort of solidified for me that the number one factor in a student's education and their success is the teacher. And we're asking teachers to do more and I totally understand why they're like, this is too much

Frontier: We're preparing these kids for the future, and they are going to get into a job market where they have to be comfortable and familiar with technology, but you’re saying it does them no good to be familiar with technology but not have learned the things necessary to actually be productive as an adult.

Even in journalism, people get left behind if they can’t keep up with technology. So it is about finding a balance.

Seifried: I want to teach our Oklahoma students how to think, not what to think, right? They'll be able to intuitively adjust with technology as it advances. I'm don’t think we need to introduce technology earlier and earlier, or that they need to be using it earlier and earlier, because they need to be prepared for something that's going to happen in 10 and 15 years. That isn’t quite as compelling to me as focusing on getting the foundations of learning down. 

Frontier: I’ve seen that in my son. He’s 6 years old and if you know any 6-year-old boys, you know what they're like with technology. Even when he was younger I would have to watch him, because I would think my 4-year-old doesn't need to be on the phone watching YouTube. And somehow, if he got my phone, he knew how to find YouTube and to find a video he wanted to watch. But as good as he is with technology, the biggest change I've seen in him in the last six months is that he learned how to read. And I saw how the world sort of opened up to him because of that ability to read in a way that dwarfed the way that world opened up to him through technology.

Seifried: We talked about how computers are a production tool. They're not a learning tool, but they're also an extremely narrow learning environment, because you're staring at a screen? Whereas, if you're up and you're talking, you're listening to the teacher, you're kind of observing the classroom. Maybe you're writing notes, depending on your age, maybe you're doing something else. And so there's a little bit more of a tactile learning environment when you're doing that. If you're a thoughtful person who has the foundations, who can problem solve, you'll be successful in life. But if you don't have that etched into you, then it will be a struggle.

Frontier: At this point are there any policy changes or any legislative ideas for the future on this topic that you came out of that study with?

Seifried: No, I think this topic is just still so new. My personal next steps will be to check in with my local superintendents and teachers and kind of get feedback. What's hard is that I represent the whole state. So that means you have to put something in statute that is applicable to everyone. It took me two years to pass something as easy as removing cell phones from classrooms. So I think this will be a long term project.

klahoma voters won’t choose their next governor for another year, but the Republican primary is already heating up. Recent polling from former Oklahoma House Speaker Charles McCall’s campaign suggests the race between McCall and Attorney General Gentner Drummond is closer than you might think. But as other candidates begin to join the fray, the Drummond camp says that’s not true. 

The survey, conducted September 23–25, found Attorney General Gentner Drummond leading with 35% support, closely followed by House Speaker Charles McCall at 33%, while 32% of respondents remained undecided.

The Frontier spoke with pollster Chris Wilson about his recent survey for the McCall campaign and Matthew Parker, Drummond’s campaign chairman, about how the candidates are positioning themselves to voters. The following is a condensed transcript of the conversation. For the full interview, listen to our podcast. The margin of error is 3.5%.

This week on Listen Frontier, we’re looking at Operation SAFE, Governor Kevin Stitt’s effort to clear homeless encampments in Tulsa with the help of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol.

The Frontier sat down with Gov. Stitt, who told me the operation isn’t about solving homelessness, but about enforcing the law. He said Oklahomans are experiencing “compassion fatigue,” and that many of the people removed from encampments “didn’t want help.”

We also spoke with Steven Whitaker, CEO of Tulsa’s John 3:16 Mission, who offered a different view. Whitaker acknowledged the risks of being too compassionate, but stressed that the people living on Tulsa’s streets are our neighbors, and most of them are in desperate need of empathy, shelter, and support.

Together, their perspectives paint a complicated picture of homelessness in Tulsa, and the deep divide over how the state and city should respond.

Oklahoma is racing to attract data centers, facilities that store and process the information powering everything from streaming services to artificial intelligence, to the Sooner State.

Governor Kevin Stitt has touted them as a cornerstone of economic growth, but as more projects roll into communities, residents and lawmakers are asking questions: How much water and electricity will these centers consume, and why is so much of that information kept under wraps?

Cities and companies often sign nondisclosure agreements, meaning details about utility use and long-term costs are hidden from the public. That lack of transparency has fueled concern from those who worry about higher bills, strained resources, and the environmental impact of these projects. At the same time, state leaders see them as a chance to make Oklahoma a national hub for tech investment.

Today on Listen Frontier, we’re joined by Representative Amanda Clinton, a Tulsa Democrat hosting an interim study on data centers, and Frontier reporter Kayla Branch, who’s been covering the issue. We’ll talk about what’s known, what’s still secret, and why the fight over data centers is really a debate about policy, accountability, and public trust.

On Wednesday, Tulsa’s City Council is set to vote on an ordinance that would limit what Tulsans can do on sidewalks and medians. The proposed ordinance comes after two incidents, one in 2023, and one in 2024, where two separate people were killed while standing in center medians.

Councilor Phil Lakin, who spoke to The Frontier on Monday about the ordinance, said it was about public safety. Many medians in Tulsa are narrow, and in zones where the speed limit is above 25 miles per hour, he believes standing in the median is a safety hazard. The ordinance would also potentially apply to sidewalks that are within 18 inches of the street as well.

But when it comes to enforcement, some, including City Councilor Laura Bellis, fear the ordinance will only be applied to those panhandling, and she fears fines associated with the ordinance could prove too costly.

On this episode of Listen Frontier, we hear from Bellis, Lakin, and Deputy Council Administrator Sarah Davis ahead of Wednesday’s meeting.

This is Listen Frontier, a podcast exploring the investigative journalism of the Frontier and featuring conversations with those on the frontlines of Oklahoma’s most important stories. Listen to us Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

To donate to The Frontier and help support our efforts to grow investigative journalism in Oklahoma, click here.

Five years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark McGirt v. Oklahoma decision affirmed much of eastern Oklahoma as Indian Country, some towns are still issuing traffic and municipal tickets to tribal citizens. In this episode, we talk with reporters Clifton Adcock and Allison Herrera about their investigation into why this happens, how it plays out in municipal courts, and what that means for tribal sovereignty.

The conversation looks into the tension between local governments and tribal nations, the burden on everyday citizens caught in the middle, and the patchwork of settlements and agreements reshaping law enforcement. We also explore whether tribal courts and police departments have the resources to handle the cases being shifted their way, and what models of cooperation might point the way toward a lasting solution.

This is Listen Frontier, a podcast exploring the investigative journalism of the Frontier and featuring conversations with those on the frontlines of Oklahoma’s most important stories. Listen to us Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

To donate to The Frontier and help support our efforts to grow investigative journalism in Oklahoma, click here.

Chuck Hoskin Jr. has served as Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation since 2019, leading the tribe through a period of historic legal shifts, economic investment, and political tension. 

At the center of much of it is McGirt v. Oklahoma, the landmark 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision that affirmed much of eastern Oklahoma remains reservation land. That ruling reshaped how justice is administered in Indian Country and how tribal sovereignty is understood and exercised today.

On this episode of Listen Frontier, Hoskin pushed back on critics who claim the McGirt decision led to “legal chaos.” He also reflected on the strained relationship between tribal nations and Gov. Kevin Stitt, discussed how he hopes the next governor will mend that relationship, and talked about how the Cherokee Nation is working to lift up long-neglected communities while simultaneously facing the challenges that come with increased jurisdictional authority.

This is Listen Frontier, a podcast exploring the investigative journalism of the Frontier and featuring conversations with those on the frontlines of Oklahoma’s most important stories. Listen to us Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

To donate to The Frontier and help support our efforts to grow investigative journalism in Oklahoma, click here.