1:14 p.m.
Hello all. Here is how I incorporated Garth's thoughts. Once again, my
apologies on the weirdness of fonts, etc. Luckily it doesn't affect the
actual document. Let me know if you would like to see the whole document
(15 pgs) again before I file it.
In the following sections:
*Problems with AI*
1.
/What are your key concerns with AI, in general, or with specific
AI-based technologies? /
*
*Intellectual property: I*ntellectual property is used in ways that
are opaque and hidden, retarding real efforts at regulation and
education. We can't properly understand AI enough to regulate it
without knowing more about what we’re supposed to regulate. The
context in which the current processes emerged have completely
changed. New assumptions and a new language will be required to move
forward.
*
*Discourse disconnect: *When technological advances cause major
societal changes, the language used to anticipate the consequences
is the one describing the existing technologies. We referred to
automobiles as horseless carriages, understanding them in terms of
the existing transportation system, not the one about to extend the
possibilities of transportation into entirely different phase of
land use and social organization. It is only now that we are leaving
it that we have a vocabulary to describe the societal and
environmental consequences of living in a car culture. In the
current context, the technical vocabulary of AI does not align well
with broader socio-political discourse, making democratic oversight
difficult. The complexities and levels of abstraction of rapidly
changing AI development and use are outpacing any capacity for
public dialogue on how society is adapting to change.To reframe our
understanding of what is happening to us, we have to evolve a new
vocabulary.
*Missing from the discussion*
*
We are not talking about ownership of digital simulations. The
online simulation of persons through data collection is an extension
of those persons. Therefore, it must belong to them, not to the
agencies that collect the data, as is currently the case. In the
early days of the Internet, there was a debate about this, under the
awkward heading of user-centric digital identity. That debate faded
from sight, as individuals did not foresee the value of their
content to corporations who quickly figured out how to monetize it.
As artificial intelligence magnifies the capacity to simulate
identities by many orders of magnitude, that debate, under the
heading of individual digital autonomy, needs to re-emerge.
Marita
On 2026-03-12 3:25 p.m., Garth Graham wrote:
Re: Vass Bedna. As U.S. state and Big Tech become one, we become
digital serfs, and it sucks. The Globe and Mail, March 12, 2026
I ask myself, if “Canada” gained the national digital sovereignty outlined in the
attached essay, and therefore had the same capacity for surveillance of Canadians as US
corporations now do, what difference would it make to me? While I agree with the red
flags raised in this article enough to contribute it to our discussions, I feel the need
to outline what I expect remains a contrary and perhaps naïve opinion. To me, the real
societal issue is individual digital autonomy, not just Canadian digital sovereignty as a
matter of national security.
Beginning in 1992, as the Internet emerged and I became involved in community
networking, I have frequently stated that the online simulation of me through data
collection is an extension of myself. Therefore, it must belong to me, not to the
agencies that collect the data that makes it possible. Data about me as their property
makes me a consumer, not a person. In the early days of the Internet, there was a debate
about this, under the awkward heading of user-centric digital identity. That debate faded
from sight, largely because the corporations participating in it didn’t want it to
succeed. As artificial intelligence magnifies the capacity to simulate my identity by
many orders of magnitude, that debate, under the heading of individual digital autonomy,
needs to re-emerge.
When technological advances cause major societal changes, the language used to
anticipate the consequences is the one describing the existing technologies affecting the
organization of society. A simple way to express this is how we referred to automobiles as
horseless carriages, understanding them in terms of the existing transportation system,
not the one about to extend the possibilities of transportation into entirely different
phase spaces of land use and social organization. It is only now that we are leaving it
that we have a vocabulary to describe the societal and environmental consequences of
living in a car culture. To reframe our understanding of what is happening to us, we have
to evolve a new vocabulary.
It seems to me that the context for applied imagination, origination, creation,
invention, authorship, and even learning is rapidly changing. As a consequence, maybe we
should consider that the assumptions behind the ideas of copyright, privacy and
intellectual property are now becoming the equivalent of the horseless carriage? While I
admit that I don’t have the capacity to frame the necessary new language to anticipate the
changes on their own terms, I believe that insisting on individual digital autonomy in the
ownership of the simulation of myself highlights those changes in a way that is useful in
making a start.
Digital serfs of the world, arise! You have nothing to lose in a redefinition of the way
your efforts are rewarded.
GG
_______________________________________________
Advisors mailing list -- advisors(a)tc.ca
To unsubscribe send an email to advisors-leave(a)tc.ca