What is one main reason the board opposes a mandated replacement of human interpreters with AI?

The primary reason the board opposes the mandatory replacement of human interpreters with AI is the belief in the necessity of emotional tone in discussions. Interpersonal communication often relies heavily on nuances, empathy, and the emotional context conveyed through human interaction, which AI may struggle to replicate adequately. Human interpreters bring a level of understanding that captures not just the literal meaning of words but also the subtleties of emotional expression, cultural context, and interpersonal dynamics. This human element is essential in many discussions, especially in sensitive or complex matters that require empathy and rapport, which AI systems do not inherently possess.

The other options do not provide the same depth of reasoning. For instance, while AI has advanced capabilities, it may not always be superior in contexts requiring complex emotional intelligence. Moreover, the board's stance is not necessarily about financial interests but rather the qualitative aspects of communication that only humans can fulfill. Lastly, concerns about AI systems being immovable once implemented do not address the fundamental reasons related to the quality of communication needed in discussions, which is at the heart of the board's opposition.