Before worrying about AI's threat to humankind, here's what else Canada can do

The headlines have been, to say the least, troubling.

Most recently, Geoffrey Hinton, the so-called Godfather of AI, quit his post at Google and warned the rapid advances in artificial intelligence could ultimately pose an existential threat to humankind.

"I think that it's conceivable that this kind of advanced intelligence could just take over from us," the renowned British-Canadian computer scientist told CBC's As It Happens.

"It would mean the end of people."

While such stark comments are impossible to ignore, some experts say they risk obscuring more immediate, practical concerns for Canada. 

"Whether deliberately or inadvertently, folks who are talking about the existential risk of AI – even in the negative – are kind of building up and hyping the field," said Luke Stark, an assistant professor of information and media studies at Western University in London, Ont.

"I think it's a bit of a red herring from many of the concerns about the ways these systems are being used by institutions and businesses and governments right now around the world and in Canada."

Stark, who researches the social impacts of technologies such as artificial intelligence, is among the signatories of an open letter critical of the federal government's proposed legislation on artificial intelligence, Bill C27.

The letter argues the government's Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA), which is part of C27, is too short on details, leaving many important aspects of the rules around AI to be decided after the law is passed.

The legislation, tabled last June, recently completed its second reading in the House of Commons and will be sent to committee for study.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada said "the government expects that amendments will be proposed in response to testimony from experts at committee, and is open to considering amendments that would improve the bill."

Experts say other jurisdictions, including the European Union and the United Kingdom, have moved more quickly toward putting in place strong rules governing AI.

They cite a long list of human rights and privacy concerns related to the technology, ranging from its use by law enforcement, misinformation and instances where it reinforces patterns of racism and discrimination.

The proposed legislation wouldn't adequately address such concerns, said Maroussia Lévesque, a PhD candidate in law at Harvard University who previously led the AI and human rights file at Global Affairs Canada.