12:39 p.m.
Hello advisors. Sorry for dropping this for a couple of weeks. I just
looked at it again and still think it would a worthwhile exercise. There
is a good set of questions to consider. We already have a couple of
responses on record for some of the questions they are asking -- from
Garth and from Evan. I don't think there is any harm in crafting a
response which we could send into the process if we can get a few people
on a zoom call. Whether such a response moves any dials in the process
that is underway doesn't matter that much to me. All the responses will
be visible on their website, so our comments would remain intact in that
way. We can also put the responses on our website. And Evan's suggestion
of sending something directly to ISED could also happen.
Let's try to find a time to have a one hour call and see what we can
come up with.
Marita
On 2026-02-02 2:35 p.m., Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hi Marita,
Thanks for sending this.
Given the tone of the original letter, I'd be extremely hesitant to
participate further with this org unless there's some confidence that
"the People's Consultation" is really approaching the issue with an
open perspective. I've seen previous examples of this tactic in which
*any* submission to their effort just adds submittors to the list of
signatories, asserting endorsement of whatever their next attempt
produces; indeed it may be no different from the original version that
some TC members found problematic.
Frankly, one could use their template to simply craft a TC response
directly to ISED, and bypass the gatekeeper altogether. I don't have
the cycles to do this single-handedly but would be fine participating
in a group effort should the interest exist. Personally I would love
to see 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. OTOH, I won't be part of
anything that wraps technical issues in culture-war tropes.
(In particular, the open letter's demand for excessive guardrails is
at best misguided and at worst laughable. I'm working with local
versions of AI models on my own computer as we speak, and it's clear
to me that as fast as guardrails can be applied to AI models there are
others able to disable them. For a quick example, it's easy to
download versions of Chinese models such as DeepSeek which undo all
the embedded CCP censorship and give frank answers to embarrassing
questions.)
- Evan
On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 1:20 PM Marita Moll <mmoll(a)ca.inter.net
<mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> wrote:
Hello advisors. When the invitation to sign an open letter to the
Minister of AI (Nov. 2025?), we chose not to sign this letter as
some of the wording was considered problematic, specifically it
seemed to preclude possible benefits that AI might have to offer.
However, the same group has now developed an extensive
consultation tool seeking input on the issue of AI implementation
to which we could offer our collective wisdom. The e-mail
currently being circulated is reproduced below with lots of links
to various parts of this project. However, just to simplify, here
is a link to the guide and submisison templete which gives you an
idea of what this entails.
Basic Consultation Guide with Submission Template
<https://www.peoplesaiconsultation.ca/basic-consultation-guide-with-submis...
I think we could offer some useful input. *Let me know if you are
interested in participating. *Deadline for submissions is Mar. 15.
As I am probably going to be away from Mar. 3-11, I would need to
get this ball rolling very soon.
Marita
see forwarded e-mail below
_______________________________________________
Advisors mailing list -- advisors(a)tc.ca
To unsubscribe send an email to advisors-leave(a)tc.ca