We'll look to our industry partners and their practices. The Vector Institute deals a lot with health sector institutions, which are regulated. We deal with financial services, which are regulated. Our industry partners know and well understand that they have to answer to their regulators in terms of their decision-making. That can come from a human, and that can come from an algorithm, but at the end of the day, the corporation is responsible for its actions.
One of the areas where the Vector Institute spends a large amount of its time and energy is on the ever-evolving speed at which AI innovation crosses over into different areas. For a regulator, part of the effort is in helping them to understand how fast AI is evolving and the fact that the concerns they might have been tracking six months ago are now replaced by an entirely new set of concerns they might not have thought of.
We can look to our regulated sectors, like financial services, telecom and health, and the way in which they answer to their regulators on the need for what we call explainable AI. It's the idea that they have to be able to satisfy to a regulatory standard the nature of their decision-making and be able to justify that they understand how those decisions were made. That can apply to good old-fashioned data science, good old-fashioned statistical methods that have been in place for years, whether it was a judgment from a human or whether it was done by an algorithm.
I think one of the things that are an evolving area of research for the Vector Institute is that there are some terms from...call it a public policy initiative, where there's no agreed-upon definition of the goal of that standard. One of the things we're often familiar with is a refrain that algorithmic decision-making should be fair. There's no universally accepted computer science definition of what fair means. It's actually an evolving area of AI research. To the extent that a regulated sector has to demonstrate that to a regulator, they spend a large amount of their time and energy, for example, working with us on understanding the implications of that standard and how it will carry through into their existing risk management frameworks.
Mr. Myers also alluded to this. These are processes that industries have used for some time, and they are evolving in complexity. Both the industry partners that we have and the regulators that they report to have worked with us on those evolving needs.