Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre speaks during a rally in Montreal, on June 19.Christinne Muschi/The Canadian Press
Political leadership
Re “Trudeau to remain party leader as Liberals demand urgent changes after stunning by-election loss” (June 26): Jagmeet Singh’s NDP said that “after nine years of Justin Trudeau, people are worse off.”
Good job trying to distance the party from the Liberals. He should remember that he’s been Mr. Trudeau’s enabler-in-chief.
Dave Drobitch Tillsonburg, Ont.
A win is a win. Change is always good.
But the most serious issue: Do we as ordinary citizens want Pierre Poilievre as our next prime minister?
Farouk Verjee West Vancouver
Re “What’s there to fear about Pierre Poilievre?” (June 20): While not an exhaustive list, my “fears,” in no particular order, include Pierre Poilievre’s rants on ”Justin-flation,” misinformation on the carbon tax, endorsement of cryptocurrency, promises of forced drug rehab and crime-free streets, simplistic remedies for the housing crisis, disappointing choreography on transgender rights, unsettling on-again-off-again flirtations with a certain far-right group, plans to cut foreign aid to fund the military, and refusal to review unredacted security documents.
Capping the above manifesto is his “everything is broken” pout on the precious democracy we call Canada. In essence, his penchant to serve up seemingly straightforward quick fixes to modern-day challenges (that are far more complex) show them to be beyond his capability to address in any substantive way.
As David Eby so aptly phrased it, the “baloney factory” is humming.
Tom Bergen Squamish, B.C.
Re “Liberal MP criticizes his own party over plans to end open-net salmon farming in B.C.” (June 20): So New Brunswick MP Wayne Long has accused his party of being too urban. Quelle surprise.
The Liberals have won repeated elections by focusing almost exclusively on urban voters. A look at a map of MPs shows me that, other than the North and Maritime provinces (which I believe the party has taken for granted for decades), Liberal MPs come almost exclusively from Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto-Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo, Winnipeg and Vancouver.
Why would Mr. Long be surprised that, especially as the polls get worse, his party is “pandering” to its base? Did he, from a less urban riding, expect his constituents’ concerns to coincide with those of his party?
Tom Curran Prince Edward County, Ont.
Adapt or adopt?
Re “When it comes to AI, it feels like we’re doing more adaptation than adoption these days. This is not a good feeling” (Opinion, June 22): Any directive for artificial intelligence should require basic diagnostic information, such as the goal of the AI system, accuracy and false positives. Like an ingredient label, this would provide a common lexicon to evaluate AI.
In this way we adapt AI to humans, and shorten the lag from having to use it, to wanting to use it.
Deitra Sawh Toronto
Everyone involved with the development or use of technology should read this.
I was an engineering faculty member at the University of Waterloo, where I worked on and taught the design of information systems. One could predict the economic success or failure of an information system with a high degree of accuracy with the answer to one question: Were the potential users heavily involved in its development?
I also worked in France during that time, where there was a greater appreciation for man-machine symbiosis. Yes, adoption is the key to success, not adaptation.
Unfortunately the latter prevails in North America, which is why artificial intelligence is unlikely to reach its useful economic potential.
Dave Conrath Burlington, Ont.
Re “Technology and the law: Reining in AI’s threat to creativity” (Editorial, June 25): The push for a free ride from content creators and a copyright exception for artificial intelligence would be market-destroying, as well as a pointless capitulation to Big Tech’s endless profit-raking from work they don’t own.
I do not find University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist’s point about competition to be “excellent,” but rather a deceptive Big Tech talking point used again and again over the past 20 years to excuse the pillaging of intellectual property. So if we don’t let the Googles and Microsofts of the world grab everything they want for free, only Google and Microsoft will be able to afford to license that material? That’s an argument against competition, not for it.
There is nothing wrong with paying suppliers for the supply of materials used, ever, even in a research or educational context. As a society, we generally agree to pay people for their work. No?
John Degen, CEO, The Writers’ Union of Canada Toronto
Including an exception in Canada’s Copyright Act for text- and data-mining would severely undermine the country’s creative community. When content is used for such purposes, it should be paid for. An AI regulatory system that recognizes the value of human creation should be essential to the sustainability of a vibrant cultural sector.
This need not be at the expense of innovation or future AI development. In markets around the world, licensing is emerging as an effective solution to facilitate the use of copyright-protected content for the training of AI systems.
Although the editorial raises concerns around the costs of such licensing, Canadian regulators have an opportunity to create conditions that would allow cost-effective licensing solutions to emerge, enabling copyright “to foster the creation of original works by preserving the economic benefits from doing so,” while simultaneously fuelling innovation.
Kate Edwards, CEO, Access Copyright Toronto
As generative artificial intelligence spreads, we may reach a point where much of the material scanned by such applications as source data has itself been generated by AI.
The result could be similar to what one gets when making multiple photocopies, each taken from the previous one. Through successive generations, detail and meaning are lost, ending up with an amorphous grey mush.
Is this the future of literature?
Douglas Campbell Victoria
Canadian game
Re “Stanley Cup Game 7 attracted near-record Canadian TV audience” (Sports, June 26): I tuned in to the Stanley Cup final, cheering on the Edmonton Oilers, only to succumb to the inevitable for anyone who supports Canadian NHL teams. But your article about North American television viewing should raise eyebrows.
Canada, a country of 40 million or so, had 7.55 million viewers while the United States, with its nearly 340 million people, had 7.66 million. That means a country with almost nine times our population drew about the same number of viewers.
Maybe the powers that be at the NHL should take a course in marketing.
Jerry Amernic Toronto
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com