First isn’t necessarily the best

There are a number of examples of when being first isn’t necessarily the best. Google was hardly the first search engine, as any of us from the early days can attest. Apple didn’t create the first smartphone or the first music player. And ever since the failure to gain significant international acceptance of the CT2+ standard in the early 1990’s, Canada has used a “fast follower” policy inside Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.

However, for regulating Artificial Intelligence (AI), Canada seems to be taking pride in being “one of the first countries in the world to propose a law to regulate AI.”

In February, I wrote about my concerns in respect of technology specific legislation for AI.

Last week, ITIF hosted a one-hour LinkedIn webinar about Canada’s AI and Data Act (AIDA). During the session, concerns were expressed about whether Canada’s legislation was premature. The moderator asked if Canada wants to get the legislation “right”, or get it “right now”. Participants questioned the urgency to press forward with the legislation.

An article in Axios discusses Meta’s decision to withhold its developments in multi-modal AI from Europe because of regulatory concerns. Last month, Apple made a similar announcement, restricting the release of Apple Intelligence, generative AI to be integrated into iPhones, iPads, and Macs.

Will Canada risk similar restrictions on access to innovative services and technologies? Will AIDA lead to negative impacts on Canada’s important AI ecosystem?

When it comes to restrictive legislation, being first isn’t necessarily the best, especially when Canadians might lose out on access to innovative technologies.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top