Industry committee  We can't know how these things will be used. We can write systems all day where we say, “This is where we think it will be used. This is what we think the risks and harms could be.” It's a tool. You can't tell anybody how to use a tool. If they use it a certain way that's not in

Industry committee  I have just two comments on this. One, it's partially why, if we had a proper public engagement and started from the beginning, you'd have to map the infrastructural assets that make up artificial intelligence. There is no AI without big tech, full stop. You can't spin it up in

Industry committee  That's correct. Guess what's going to happen. It will surface the harms that right now we're talking about in abstractions. I'm sorry, everyone. I cannot believe we keep doing this. This is not how the world works. You have to talk about specificity. That is how the law works.

Industry committee  There's nothing wrong with supporting the industry of AI. I want to be very clear about that. However, to me, it is stunningly disingenuous to use fear, safety, harm reduction, human rights protection and more to say that's the reason for this bill, which is why I was asking what

Industry committee  I just want to go back to my remark about making the same mistake for the third time. It's the same mistake that we saw with privacy and data protection, which is to treat these topics as objects that are independent from the rest of the world as it exists. We've seen the failure

Industry committee  I'm not going to respond to that. I'm not well located to comment on the privacy pieces of the bill.

Industry committee  There is at least one alternative, which is why I keep going back.... The groundwork, the homework for this bill was not done. Even before you go out to the public, you go within the government and ask if this is the problem we're seeing in banking, in health care and in automobi

Industry committee  I genuinely don't think this is the right approach from a structural question perspective, because artificial intelligence, if we break it down, is pattern matching and advanced statistics. We didn't regulate mathematics. We didn't regulate statistics. We didn't regulate database

Industry committee  It's industry. Capital is looking for the next place to go. I'm only saying this because the business model isn't even proven yet. Do you know who knows they're making money? It's Google, Microsoft and Amazon. For every other start-up that is riding on the back of those companies

Industry committee  Certainly. Thank you. I think, even with academics, they're not working in operations. The reason I listed the examples I gave is that I think AI starts to make sense when we talk about it in a specific context: as mentioned, in manufacturing, in health care, in dentists' offic

Industry committee  Absolutely. There are two things on this point. One of them is that harm is always contextual. Something can seem absolutely safe in terms of, say, data collection your doctor has, and you turn around and someone else has it. It's dangerous. It's never absent context and use, ev

Industry committee  My name is Bianca Wylie. I work in public interest digital governance as a partner at Digital Public. I've worked at both a tech start-up and a multinational. I've also worked in the design, development and support of public consultations for governments and government agencies.

Information & Ethics committee  No, I haven't.

Information & Ethics committee  This is good, because I get to complete a thought from earlier. Web-based apps, being able to use the Internet to go.... ArriveCAN had three options. You could use it on your computer, just by logging in with an email, or you could use it through Apple or Google operating systems

Information & Ethics committee  Yes, I definitely did. I don't think you can put a price on trust. I think with the damage that this app did to public trust you could have tripled what was spent on ArriveCAN to make sure that kiosks were updated or that they were staffed.