Last week, Canadians from coast to coast were talking about a camera, a single camera sitting atop a lamppost in Montreal. Why so much interest? Turns out that camera was AI surveillance, recording all cars and activity going on below and feeding it through artificial intelligence.
A Radio-Canada journalist’s astute observation sparked a national debate. Montreal police told the reporter it was part of a special investigation. The journalist learned it had been installed without public awareness nor consultation. Within hours of the story going public, the camera was taken down.
The report revealed yet another infiltration of AI in our lives, compromising our privacy without public consultation.
Had others noticed the camera? Maybe. But when a journalist noticed, they knew what questions to ask, to whom, and how to responsibly share that information with the public.
How do we know the journalist’s questions mattered? Because the camera was taken down as soon as the public was informed.
Journalists are not “influencers.” Influencers can say anything and answer to no one. Yet many people today get their news from social media “influencers.” No wonder there is more polarization between people. No wonder indeed, if people are satisfied with “alternative facts.”
Renowned Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari, author of the global bestseller Sapiens – A Brief History of Humankind, says humans evolved from being insignificant animals to masters of Planet Earth when they developed language. From language sprang trade, religions, social organization, finance and laws. Because of words, human civilization evolved.
But words can deceive. Harari calls truth “costly, complicated, and painful,” while fiction is “cheap, simple, and flattering.” And so, humans later developed two institutions to bolster truth over fiction: journalism and science.
Today, as artificial intelligence highjacks language to supersede humanity, the institutions of science and journalism are being doubted and de-funded, right when we need them most.
If you are concerned about AI’s lightning-speed evolution and real potential to relegate humans to “has-beens” – and you should be – then I firmly believe you should consider bolstering the institutions that have asked the hard questions and offered valuable insights: journalism and science.
Seriously. We don’t just do this for a paycheck. (If so, we would all be working for pharmaceutical companies.) We publish The Gleaner because journalism, facts, oversight, and hard questions matter to us.
We hope they matter to you, too. We should all be asking tough questions about AI.
Jackie Rourke, Executive Editor