A school superintendent is making some wildly misleading and false claims in a story about buying expensive sex worker robots to replace school teachers.
First, his claims are mutually exclusive.
He says the system is closed and not connected to the internet, and Realbotix will have no access to personally identifiable student information.
Sounds very unlikely.
The same system supposedly delivers homework photo feedback, on-demand lesson generation, and real-time translation in over 100 languages, is accessible on student laptops during and after school hours, retains per-student conversation history keyed to unique identification codes, and automatically alerts school administrators when flagged terms appear.
A closed and disconnected system does none of that.
Automated alerting means conversations are logged and routed. Per-student memory means a behavioral dataset exists, maintained by whoever built the model.
Either the offline claim is false or the feature list is, and my bet is the sex doll was never designed to function without being connected.
Second, we are being told Realbotix “trained” the system to say “I don’t know” instead of hallucinating. I call bullshit. That is not a capability anyone has. It is a vendor assurance repeated verbatim by the buyer, unverifiable by design, and the district’s stated evaluation method is qualitative feedback. No metrics, no audit, no independent test. And let’s be honest, this is a companion robot that was marketed as a sex worker. It is not even remotely close to showing any pedagogical training.
I have years of experience proving this exact flaw; integrity breaches caused by “companion” training. No way is a sex doll for teaching little children the frontier of this safety control.
Third, what is going on with the procurement? It was initiated when a former colleague met an investor at a dinner? A planned dinner? Then a sole-source “discounted” $57,590 against a $95,000 list price, for which the district supplies the CEO his “landmark moment” press release. That $38K buys a reference customer for basically nothing. And at time of purchase the vendor still owns the RealDoll parent; the ownership separation is merely “intended,” expected by September. The board approved in June. Were any of them at “dinner” too?
Fourth, the superintendent’s stated rationale to bring in robotic sex workers to replace teachers is that students will circumvent bans. If he believes that, why isn’t he promoting general law breaking to children? “You’ll do it anyway” seems like the recipe for failure where the school tries to avoid any responsibility for causing it all. The logic doesn’t work. Saying kids don’t obey rules does not translate to the purchase of a silicone humanoid from a sex-doll conglomerate to deploy on a student body that is 79 percent economically disadvantaged, on reservation land, as the pilot population.
