The funny thing is, they never seem to deny being a sock puppet when called out on it. I suppose because they don't want an actual discussion where more people actually go look and see what's obvious once you check.
I would rather Canada openly call a genocide what it is, and openly call war criminals what they are, and never have any contact with a monster like this guy again.
I had noticed Hotznplotzn, randomname, and Scotty, but not the other two. I'll make a note to keep an eye out for them in future. Thanks for sharing.
The posting behaviour is hard not to notice after a while, and when called out on it they just tend to avoid interaction or use the same rhetoric of whataboutism or attacking the person calling them out as a propagandist.
With Scotty, who is quite active in the Canada community, I did notice that after having been called out repeatedly and met with pushback they slightly pivoted in their approach to include more posts that are pro-Canadian sovereignty mixed in with their standard anti-China and anti-Russia content, but, for the most part they just keep on going forward with the same strategy and methods, doing their job, following whatever manual they've got.
Who cares about Richard Gere's opinion and thinks foreign policy should be based on it? It’s not like he's some geopolitical expert, or even Canadian. This is just propaganda. It is of zero substance.
Demand for AI isn't going to disappear even if valuations collapse. If the hyperscalers pull out of infrastructure deals on data centers being built by big Canadian businesses and leaving them with huge liabilities, bail out the big Canadian companies by buying them out and nationalizing the data centres. The big companies are saved from liabilities, the assets transfer to the public balance sheet, and Canada ends up with real sovereign AI and the capacity to serve inference from nationalized providers.
China has applied tariffs on a key Canadian industry in response to Canada putting unjustifiably high tariffs on one of their key industries simply to make the US happy.
So, wtf is the point of this? We are picking a fight with a major economic power over something that doesn't serve our own interests, and we're doing so for the interests of a country that is intentionally crushing and taking away another major Canadian industry.
China is also hardly at the limit of leverage they could exert. They could cause much more harm, even though they're not. Why do we want hostility with a major economic power over this?
We should be working to de-escalate with China and find agreements that work for both sides, not fighting a battle with them over EVs many Canadians would like access to just to make the US happy.
Glad to see CBC following up on and building on the Canadian Anti-Hate Network's reporting. There needs to be mainstream awareness of this. Gyms, community centres and other venues these groups are using to organize and build need to be in high alert.
I am totally okay with a Liberal party that marginalizes the CPC's extreme voters by moving right and appealing to their more moderate voters, thereby also alienating people who are more on the left inside the Liberal tent so that the NDP has more potential for resurgence. Seems like the kind of thing that might be good for a multi-party system.
The so-called "debt trap diplomacy" is completely discredited in international development finance, and has been for years. It is just propaganda, not a real thing. So, the author building their argument on a completely discredited idea should tell you what you need to know about their competence or intent.
Okay... wow. I even pointed you to two government groups working on other sides of the issue, but you're just ignoring the overall government approach.
The government approach isn't perfect, but I don't have interest in arguing with someone focused on establishing an ideological position, going back to hyperbole again and again, and responding to a reasonable question with stuff stuff like this:
What is the "grounding" of any belief about anything? That's a much more interesting question, one that AI boosters would do well to think more deeply about.
We can just leave it as agreeing to disagree. No point wasting anyone's time.
we would want like 90% advocacy and civil society groups
If Canada had a national strategy group on achieving leadership in the arts, would you say 90% of members must be from outside the arts and not even experts on the arts who receive any public funding? What would that actually achieve?
This is a strategy group on making plans for how to achieve Canadian leadership in AI. The whole purpose of it is to provide an urgent response to a lack of industrial strategy in a rapidly growing and emerging space of critical importance. They have an objective to provide an industrial strategy document. If you don’t have voices at the table who are engaged in industry, there will be no point in even forming a group because it will never achieve the goal. Nonetheless, it still has substantial civil society representation and open consultation. You didn’t like the questions in the survey? They provided an email address to receive open-ended responses where you could send whatever feedback you wanted.
Still, none of these are passing legislation or allocating funds.
Government is not a monolith, and Canada is taking a layered approach to AI strategy, one layer of which is industrial policy. And, if Canadians don’t like the strategic guidance produced by any of these groups, they can pressure their representatives to shape the actual legislation around them.
Out of curiosity, what is the actual grounding of your beliefs about AI and AI policy? There is plenty to be concerned about, but your responses are also full of hyperbole. What are you basing them on?
You've listed 13 that are on the industry side, including one who bridges academia and commercialization. There's 11-12 who fall across civil society, academia and research. That doesn't seem wildly unbalanced to me, but nobody is saying it's perfect so feel free to suggest how you think it would be better structured and what categories you would look to form it around.
Both our defence and our intelligence services will need a bit of cleaning out at the top. Both have long been too integrated and dependent on the US.