The Canadian government is now employing artificial intelligence to navigate a flood of public feedback regarding its evolving AI policy. Minister Evan Solomon revealed Thursday that an internally built AI platform is sifting through over 11,000 submissions received during a recent national strategy update consultation.
This isn’t a simple data entry task. The AI is designed to translate responses and distill them into concise summaries, a monumental undertaking given the sheer volume of input. Solomon assured the public that this process adheres to Treasury Board guidelines and that the complete, processed comments will eventually be released.
The consultation ran concurrently with a specially appointed expert task force, tasked with advising Solomon on the strategy’s revision. However, the composition of this task force has drawn criticism, with some experts alleging a disproportionate representation from industry and the technology sector.
Legal scholar Teresa Scassa, a professor at the University of Ottawa, wasn’t surprised by the government’s use of AI for this purpose. She explained that AI excels at identifying recurring themes, detecting coordinated submission campaigns, and gauging overall sentiment – all valuable functions in analyzing public opinion.
Scassa acknowledged the potential benefits, stating these applications of AI are “perfectly valid.” But she also cautioned against over-reliance on the technology, warning that AI-generated summaries could inadvertently overlook crucial details or subtle nuances within individual comments.
A key concern lies in the potential for bias. The AI might process formal submissions from industry professionals differently than passionate, personal responses from citizens worried about job security or the broader societal impacts of AI. This disparity in processing could skew the overall understanding of public sentiment.
The updated AI strategy is expected to be unveiled in the coming year, following a swift timeline: a 30-day period for the task force’s work and a one-month window for public consultation. This compressed schedule has already faced scrutiny.
Scassa pointed out that the brief consultation period inherently favors well-resourced organizations, effectively silencing the voices of civil society groups and individual citizens who lack the capacity to respond quickly and comprehensively. The speed prioritized efficiency, but potentially at the cost of inclusivity.
