Good points! Thanks for cutting through the information circulating on this and clarifying why the AI consultation is problematic. We need to see more inclusive and inspiring leadership from our Minister of AI and his office toward a sustainable AI for all Canadians. Similar to the strategy in the US, they seem more focused on innovation and not responsible governance of the technology.
It’s striking how these ‘consultations’ are designed for plausible deniability... enough process to gesture at inclusion, not enough substance to threaten the outcomes. The more disruptive the tech, the more performative the democracy around it becomes. Maybe the real innovation is just getting better at staging consensus.
The overall sentiment of this post is correct, this task force looks like it has too many voices that will collectively contribute too little substantial insight into what the future of AI should look like in this country. Especially with so many industry partners (and de facto industry partners like Prof Agarwal) who will be more concerned with how we can hastily align ourselves with the US hype train rather than a long-term plan for a sovereign tech and AI ecosystem (that would be hard, industry likes easy). 30 days sounds like the government has already made up its mind on a course of action and this is pure theatre and an opportunity for random industry folks to garner some prestige. Meanwhile Sam Altman has been nosing around Ottawa and Toronto…
Good points! Thanks for cutting through the information circulating on this and clarifying why the AI consultation is problematic. We need to see more inclusive and inspiring leadership from our Minister of AI and his office toward a sustainable AI for all Canadians. Similar to the strategy in the US, they seem more focused on innovation and not responsible governance of the technology.
It’s striking how these ‘consultations’ are designed for plausible deniability... enough process to gesture at inclusion, not enough substance to threaten the outcomes. The more disruptive the tech, the more performative the democracy around it becomes. Maybe the real innovation is just getting better at staging consensus.
👏 precisely the dilemma, inclusion - community and the individual in civil society. I submitted to the AI Task Force Consultation to emphasize user perspective in data and AI agency; https://docs.google.com/document/d/16uUz_Zop1pZlBAkFaV04hdo2TKdbERWTDHHvOZiphko/edit?usp=drivesdk (my words) and infographic https://docs.google.com/document/d/18ui0ims_d4lnfr9Q5KL58r5oltDeZYOH2wr_YlcoPrg/edit?usp=drivesdk (Gemini). And the driver for trust and identity resolution the First Person Project https://www.firstperson.network/white-paper. Appreciate The AI Ethics Brief 👍 thank you.
Looking forward to reading this aha. . .
The overall sentiment of this post is correct, this task force looks like it has too many voices that will collectively contribute too little substantial insight into what the future of AI should look like in this country. Especially with so many industry partners (and de facto industry partners like Prof Agarwal) who will be more concerned with how we can hastily align ourselves with the US hype train rather than a long-term plan for a sovereign tech and AI ecosystem (that would be hard, industry likes easy). 30 days sounds like the government has already made up its mind on a course of action and this is pure theatre and an opportunity for random industry folks to garner some prestige. Meanwhile Sam Altman has been nosing around Ottawa and Toronto…
You may be interested in a post I wrote last week on the future of Responsible AI vs. building AI responsibly: https://www.treycausey.com/blog/posts/whither_responsible_ai/