I can speak for myself, to begin with.
I think the bill right now is significantly better than nothing. One of the key factors for me in evaluating this is just the timeline. Do we want to be confronted in the year 2024, 2025 or 2026 with nothing on the books? My strong impulse is to say no, we must have something.
Given the timeline, as has been explained to me by folks who are working on this bill, it seems unlikely otherwise that we would have something on the books by then. That's my understanding—it may be wrong.
If that is the case, then the bill in its current form is better than nothing. That's literally how I'm approaching this. There are things that are actually very good. I think the general purpose AI system stuff and the cessation-of-operations components to the bill are really good.
Overall for me, given the current landscape and the timelines, I would be in favour of the bill's going ahead. However, I see significant issues with it, which I highlighted, including the computational power thresholds and all of that stuff, in my testimony.