AI recommendations
by Marita Moll
Hello all. Our AI paper is long but there is a recommendation section at
the end which I have reproduced below. Please take a look at what has
ended up there and let me know if this resonates with you or are there
things that need changing.
1.
/Do you have specific recommendations for lawmakers, policymakers,
or anyone else in a position of power (e.g., school boards,
employers, law enforcement, journalists) to implement when it comes
to any of the things you discussed above? If so, explain them here./
*
*Engage in multistakeholder collaboration to manage risks
internationally**: *Canada should take a leadership role in
advocating for multistakeholder governance and collaboration at the
international level in the development and use of this
transformative technology. What emerges must remain consistent with
agreed upon values. Government, private sector, civil society and
collaborative technical communities should agree on collectively
managing the risks and setting the rules and standards around AI.
*
*Reduce foreign dependency by focussing on Canadian innovation and
content: * The world of AI will increasingly feed upon itself. We
can't stop this but at least we could try to mitigate this by having
some models created in Canada. We would recommend an approach that
advocates for the leveraging of Canada's own considerable expertise
in AI with the need for digital sovereignty, attention to accuracy,
lower barriers to access, and the use of open source models to
maximize transparency. It could make access to AI models not
controlled by foreign bodies available to more people. Canada has
the resources to do this, but has not yet started work in this area.
This is all the more important as the growing call for more
regulation and rules around AI are well meaning but directed to
megacorporations based elsewhere over whom our power is extremely
limited.
*
*Support community-based digital infrastructure models: *In the face
of AI domination by foreign behemoths, Canada should encourage the
developmentof decentralized, localized AI models and infrastructures
that can be better managed and trained from trustworthy sources.
*
A*ctively support open access and open source projects: *Canada
should welcome the efforts of various actors in providing open
access and open source AI models, and indeed it should contribute to
this pool of knowledge, Just as the internet runs best (and maybe
could only run) on open source software such as Linux, AI needs more
openness and transparency as a matter of both public trust and
regulation enforceability.
*
*Support national education programs:***Invest in public AI literacy
and increased awareness. To strengthen informed participation in
democratic oversight and public ability to use AI tools in a safe
and effective manner, support national education programs and new
spaces for discussion of its long-term effects.
*
*Assess environmental impacts: *Require environmental impact
disclosures for large-scale AI infrastructure.
*
*Reimage intellectual property: *Support discussions, national and
international, to reestablish a mechanism for copyright recognition
in the world of large language models.
*
*Seek out and support community focussed AI users/groups: *As AI
evolves, there are people and groups (early adopters) who will
embrace AI’s nature on its own terms and use it imaginatively to
beneficially evolve themselves and their relationships with those
around them. All new communication technologies have passed through
such an early adaptor phase when communal benefits were emphasized.
This is where public broadcasting originated and community networks
focused on social action which emerged well before corporations saw
that demand for internet access was an economic opportunity.
Thanks
Marita
15 hours, 25 minutes
CIRA engagement platform and member survey
by Marita Moll
Hi advisors. I wanted to remind everyone who is a CIRA member that there
is still time to communicate your thoughts to CIRA through the new
engagement platform -- *see share your views below*. There is also a
member satisfaction survey.
The member engagement survey is the most important of these two, if you
have to choose. Takes a bit of time but well worth it. I note that only
71 people have engaged with this so far and only 5-6 have actually made
comments. It takes a bit of time, but I have been through it several
times, sometimes modifying my answers and comments. I hope some more
people show up.
Marita
*
*
*Reminder: annual member satisfaction survey*
ICYMI – our annual member satisfaction survey runs until March 12. Don’t
miss your opportunity to have your voice heard.
Complete the survey
<https://cira.informz.net/z/cjUucD9taT0zNTY4ODM5JnA9MSZ1PTUxNTYzNzY4OCZsaT...>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Share and compare your thoughts on CIRA*
ICYMI - we’ve partnered with Cocoriko, a Canadian-based engagement
platform designed to encourage and capture a diversity of views. Share
your feelings on CIRA, our work and mission by March 14 and instantly
see how your opinion compares with other members of the community.
Share your views
<https://cira.informz.net/z/cjUucD9taT0zNTY4ODM5JnA9MSZ1PTUxNTYzNzY4OCZsaT...>
5 days, 11 hours
Re: [Advisors] Draft doc. ftcor AI consultation - response from GG
by Marita Moll
Thanks Garth for giving the doc. a thorough read. I will work in your
suggestions. Yes, it took me quite a while to put that together. With so
many parts and similiar questions, it was easy to lose the thread. For
others who wish to comment, I will have to submit this next week. So
there is not a lot of time.
Marita
On 2026-03-04 9:45 p.m., Garth Graham wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2026, at 7:58 AM, Marita Moll <mmoll(a)ca.inter.net> wrote:
>> ...and I invite you to add comments, corrections, suggestions for additions so I can incorporate them.
> Whew! And a complex task well done.
>
> I’ve scanned through the document, flagging ideas I thought could lead to actions, and then comparing them with the section on recommendations. Here’s three possible additions to the recommendations section ….
>
> 1. Canada should take a leadership role in advocating for multistakeholder governance and collaboration at the international level in the development and use of this transformative technology. So that what emerges remains consistent with agreed upon values, government, private sector, civil society and any collaborative technical communities that come into view should agree on collectively managing the risks and setting the rules and standards around AI.
>
> 2. In the section on recommendations, it now says:
> Support national education programs: Invest in public AI literacy to strengthen informed participation in democratic oversight and public ability to use AI tools in a safe and effective manner.
>
> I’d suggest revising it as follows:
> Invest in public AI literacy and increased awareness. To strengthen informed participation in democratic oversight and public ability to use AI tools in a safe and effective manner, support national education programs and new spaces for discussion of its long-term effects.
>
> 3. Seek out change agents and create forums for them to share their experience. As AI evolves, there are people (early adopters) who will embrace AI’s nature on its own terms and use it imaginatively to beneficially evolve themselves and their relationships with those around them. Because they have reframed their perspectives more rapidly than others, they will tend to operate in spaces that are interstitial to existing socio-economic organizational structures. For example, in the early 1990s, community networks focused on social action emerged well before corporations saw that demand for Internet access was an economic opportunity But, this time out, any resulting action for change will need to anticipate resistance from existing socioeconomic organizational structures
>
> Under the heading of what next? – Perhaps TC should have our own discussion of the particular actions we might take?
> GG
>
5 days, 11 hours
Draft doc. for AI consultation
by Marita Moll
Hello advisors. Please find attached a document reflecting our responses
compiled through e-mail and zoom, to the questions asked in the People's
Consultation on AI. Thanks to all of you who contributed so far and I
invite you to add comments, corrections, suggestions for additions so I
can incorporate them.
After our zoom meeting, Joel did run our discussions through an AI tool
that creates summaries. Not wanting to be influenced, I did not look at
the AI summary until I had finished summarizing the discussions myself
and incorporating them with what we had received in written comments. I
found the AI summary to be useful in that it offered some nicely worded
headings and a few phrasings which I thought expressed an idea more
succinctly. But the overall impact was small. This is still a document
which clearly reflects the fact that we were humans having real time
discussions about a topic we cared deeply about. It makes it longer and
much more descriptive. But we do have more to offer than clever bullet
points.
One thing that did impress me was the content (bullet points) the AI
text offered about who we are and why we care about this topic. It was
much more complete than the content we had originally discussed. It
looked like the AI process did a good job of analyzing the content on
our website to tell us who we are and what we care about. I did use that
portion of the AI text!!!
Marita
6 days, 12 hours