AI Spending is Not an AI Strategy: Why the Government’s Artificial Intelligence Plan Avoids the Hard Governance Questions
There is unquestionably a need to address AI policy, but the government's approach appears to paper over hard questions about AI governance and regulation.
The government announced plans over the weekend to spend billions of dollars to support artificial intelligence. Billed as “securing Canada’s AI Advantage”, the plan includes promises to spend $2 billion on an AI Compute Access Fund and a Canadian AI Sovereign Compute Strategy that is focused on developing domestic computing infrastructure. In addition, there is $200 million for AI startups, $100 million for AI adoption, $50 million for skills training (particularly those in the creative sector), $50 million for an AI Safety Institute, and $5.1 million to support the Office of the AI and Data Commissioner, which would be created by Bill C-27. While the plan received unsurprising applause from AI institutes that have been lobbying for the money, I have my doubts. There is unquestionably a need to address AI policy, but this approach appears to paper over hard questions about AI governance and regulation. The money may be useful – though given the massive private sector investment in the space right now a better case for public money is needed – but tossing millions at each issue is not the equivalent of grappling with AI safety, copyright or regulatory challenges.
The $2 billion on compute infrastructure is obviously the biggest ticket item. Reminiscent of past initiatives to support connectivity in Canada, there may well be a role for government here. However, the private sector is already spending massive sums globally with estimates of $200 billion on AI by next year, leaving doubts about whether there is a private sector spending gap that necessitates government money. Meanwhile, the $300 million for AI startups and adoption has the feel of the government’s failed $4 billion Digital Adoption Program with vague policy objectives and similar doubts about need.
But it is the smallest spending programs that may actually be the most troubling as each appear to rely on spending instead of actual policy. The $50 million for creative workers – yet more money for Canadian Heritage to dole out – is premised on the notion that the answer to the disruption in that sector from AI is skills development. It is not. Rather, there are hard questions about the use and outputs of copyrighted works by generative AI systems. I’m not convinced that this requires immediate legislative reform given that these issues are currently before the courts, but the solution will not be found in more government spending. There is a similar story with the $50 million for the AI Safety Institute, which absent actual legislation will have no power or significant influence on global AI developments. It is the sort of thing you create when you want to be seen to be doing something, but are not entirely sure what to do.
Most troubling may the smallest allocation of $5.1 million for the Office of the AI and Data Commissioner. First, this office does not exist as it would only be formed if Bill C-27 becomes law. That bill is still stuck in committee after the government instead prioritized Bills C-11 and C-18, letting the privacy and AI bill languish for a year before it began to move in the House of Commons. It could become law in 2025, though there remains considerable opposition to the AI provisions in the bill, which received little advance consultation. Second, $5.1 million is not a serious number for creating a true enforcement agency for the legislation. In fact, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada estimates it alone needs an additional $25 million. Third, backing enforcement (however meagrely) places the spotlight on the juxtaposition of providing billions in new AI funding while pursuing AI regulation in Bill C-27. Major tech companies have warned that the bill is too vague and costly, mirroring the opposition in Europe, where both France and Germany sought to water down legislation when it became apparent the proposed rules would undermine their domestic AI industries. These are hard legislative choices that have enormous economic and social consequences with government forced to ask to how balance competing objectives and consider which will matter more to AI companies: Canadian government spending or the cost of regulation?
Canada wants to be seen as a global AI leader consistent with its early contributions to the field. But the emerging AI plan sends mixed signals with billions in government spending, legislation that may discourage private sector investment, and avoidance of the hard governance issues. That isn’t a strategy and it isn’t likely to secure an AI advantage.
Post originally appeared at https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2024/04/ai-spending-is-not-an-ai-strategy-why-the-governments-artificial-intelligence-plan-avoids-the-hard-governance-questions/
Find me on:
https://action.openmedia.org/page/53489/petition/1?locale=en-US