Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Nicolas Chartier-Edwards, PhD student, Politics, Science and Technology, Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS)

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberal government has tabled its first official budget, entitled Canada Strong. It frames itself as a road map of investments being made to strengthen national sovereignty via economic productivity and national defence. Central to those efforts is artificial intelligence.

AI-heavy technologies have been identified by eight federal agencies in the 2025 budget as a way to reduce operational expenditures while fuelling productivity.

Many of the investments in the budget are aimed at developing the defence industry through the creation and commercialization of what’s known as dual-use technology — goods, software and technology that can be used for both civilian and military applications — which can also include AI.

But is Canada Strong actually weak on AI?

Given the current legislative landscape and the new budget, we argue that Canada Strong’s AI plan downplays regulation and guardrail development, since funding is geared chiefly toward adoption. It overlooks the risks, impacts and potential weaknesses that come with an over-reliance on these technologies.

Past budgets

Indirectly, the Canadian government has consistently supported AI research through the Federal Granting Agency, the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.

Between 2006 and 2015, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government invested more than $13 billion in science, technology and innovation during its mandate.

Justin Trudeau’s government changed how AI was marketed to Canadians and how it was funded. The 2017 budget, entitled Building a Strong Middle Class, made the first explicit references to AI in a federal budget, describing it as representing a transformative force for the Canadian economy.

The government emphasized “Canada’s advantage in artificial intelligence,” which it said could translate into “a more innovative economy, stronger economic growth, and an improved quality of life for Canadians.”

Bill Morneau, the finance minister at the time, proposed funding AI superclusters and allocating $125 million to establish the first Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy.

This commitment to AI was reaffirmed in the 2021 budget, when the technology was presented as “one of the most significant technological transformations of our time.” The federal government’s investments in the sector were portrayed as essential to ensure the economy benefited, and that Canada’s position of strength enabled the “integration of Canadian values into global platforms.”

The government renewed the Pan-Canadian AI Strategy with another $368 million. An additional $2.4 billion was committed in the 2024 budget, which emphasized the “safe and responsible use” of AI, notably through the creation of new standards and the establishment of a Canadian AI Safety Institute

Sovereignty focus

The 2025 budget marks another substantial shift in Canada’s approach to AI. This third phase of funding focuses on adoption, productivity, sovereignty and the fundamental principle of dual use, both civilian and military.

But we don’t believe it fosters research and projects addressing the key issues tied to AI, and instead amplifies promotional language.

We believe the large-scale adoption of AI across federal departments and agencies (like the Canada Revenue Agency, Employment and Social Development Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Statistics Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Canadian Heritage) will actually reduce the capacity to pursue regulatory development, guardrail design, ethical deliberation and meaningful civil-society input because its widespread integration will permeate the entire bureaucracy.

AI presented as an economic driver through cost reduction and dual-use applications has become the new promotional narrative for the government.

Read more:
What are Canada’s governing Liberals going to do about AI?

The AI weakness in Canada Strong

What vulnerabilities arise when AI is aggressively deployed within the public service? Since the abandonment of the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act in 2025, Canada’s approach to AI governance has relied more on norms and standards than on the rule of law.

This environment could risk overturning a perceived AI advantage into one of weakness. This is especially true given an over-reliance by the government on foreign software (such as Microsoft CoPilot) and hardware (NVIDIA chips needed for super computers), a lack of comprehensive understanding of the technologies already in use by different agencies and no guidelines on lethal autonomous weapons — weapons systems that can independently search for, identify and attack targets without direct human intervention.

Read more:
How Russian and Iranian drone strikes further dehumanize warfare

Promoting rapid regulatory design and AI adoption within a budget focused on stimulating dual-use research, development, commercialization and implementation risks overlooking many of AI’s pitfalls, including:

• Reduced administrative transparency
• Embedded discrimination
• Models unsuited to administrative or military standards
• Mass surveillance, unethical use and unintended collateral damage.

Promotion AI as an economic boon — through public administration automation and military dual use — within an unregulated environment, and without dedicated funding for oversight, risks disrupting key sectors and services that sustain Canadian democracy, the very foundation of “Canada Strong.”

Nicolas Chartier-Edwards receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

François-Olivier Picard does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Federal budget 2025: Is Canada Strong actually weak on AI? – https://theconversation.com/federal-budget-2025-is-canada-strong-actually-weak-on-ai-269230

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Scott Schieman, Professor of Sociology and Canada Research Chair, University of Toronto

Since 2023, there has been a steady increase in media stories about the potential for automation by artificial intelligence (AI) to displace workers. As sociologists who study what people think and feel about work, we wondered if these narratives were gaining any traction among workers.

Understanding worker attitudes toward automation is a crucial part of studying AI’s broader impact on work and society. If large segments of the workforce feel threatened or left behind by AI, we risk not just economic disruption but a loss of trust in institutions and technological progress.

To explore these attitudes, we fielded a nationally representative survey of 2,519 working Canadians from Sept. 8 to 18 with the support of the Angus Reid Forum. The survey was designed to assess public attitudes and perceptions about the AI-related threat of job displacement.

We found Canadians’ responses were far from uniform, reflecting a mix of concern, skepticism and cautious optimism.

Mixed reactions to job loss

We asked respondents:

“A CEO of a major AI company recently made this statement: ‘AI could wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs and spike unemployment to 10 to 20 per cent in the next one to five years.’ How likely do you think this is?”

The quote came from Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, who was interviewed in an Axios article in May. The central thrust of the article was the imminent AI-related turbulence in the world of work.

In our survey, however, Canadian workers expressed mixed reactions to that dismal scenario: 16 per cent felt it was “very likely,” while another 48 per cent said it was only “somewhat likely.” The remaining 36 per cent said it was “not too likely” or “not at all likely.”

We then asked open-ended followup questions to gather qualitative insights about the ways that people are thinking and feeling about the AI threat. Most respondents expressed a pessimistic outlook, but a significant minority contrasted their view with optimism.

Concerns about corporate greed and job loss

A common thread among pessimistic responses was concern over corporate greed and profit. “Companies are greedy,” a 63-year-old writer said. “They want to get rid of as many jobs as possible.”

A 66-year-old clinical manager echoed the sentiment: “Companies are always looking to reduce cost and improve efficacies, so there is a strong probability this is going to happen in many organizations over the next 5 to 10 years as AI continues to be used.”

Some respondents felt these trends were happening already. “The trends and increases in speed of which AI has begun dominating the business world,” a 30-year-old engineer said. “I believe that whether or not society approves, companies will attempt to replace their entry level-jobs with AI.”

A 32-year-old real estate legal assistant said: “AI has already advanced so much in a short space of time. Combined with our society’s prioritization of profit, I doubt many companies will have any scruples about replacing people with machines.”

Others were concerned about the looming loss of dignity and respect for workers. “Executives do not see the value of the human mind compared to a machine,” a 53-year-old senior government policy analyst told us. “It shows they have no concern for employees, just profits.”

A 70-year-old civil construction inspector similarly said: “Worker productivity is low, immigration has overwhelmed services and housing, corporations have no respect for workers no matter where or what the task. There will simply be too many people competing for jobs.”

“Companies see AI as a cheap way to lay off many workers and maximize their own profits — even though doing so will make their products worse,” said a 22-year-old barista. “Companies only care about money, not the workers that generate their revenue.”

Optimism about human adaptability

Not everyone was so gloomy. Many expressed optimism about AI and the human capacity to adapt and evolve.

“AI is not a replacement for humans,” said a 54-year-old community television producer, while emphasizing that rather than replace humans, AI “should allow humans to accomplish more at their jobs.”

Others shared this confidence, drawing parallels to other historical changes in technology. “The job market will adapt as needed,” speculated a 34-year-old service officer, “switching to different roles that match the current technology, just as we have done in the past.”

A 33-year-old project co-ordinator said: “I think people and jobs will adapt to utilize technology in the same way we adapted to the internet. I think the job market will change, but overall, we’re more likely to adapt than have high unemployment.”

Read more:
Generative AI can boost innovation – but only when humans are in control

Some reinforced the human relevance of work. “Regardless of the nature of the job, individuals will still need to train the younger generation” said a 32-year-old economist. “While we might not need data entry people anymore, we still need to understand how data entry works to hold upper-level positions — it can’t just be taken away from people completely.”

What this tells us

These findings show that, despite sensational headlines about AI and job loss, Canadian workers’ perceptions about the issue are complex.

It’s clear that the emotional landscape of work is filled with frustrations about corporate priorities and skepticism about whether workers will be protected. And yet, our survey found traces of resilience in the belief in the essential humanness of work.

Over the next one to five years, we’ll continue to track how this all plays out, and the ways that Canadian workers, business leaders and policymakers adapt and evolve to the ongoing changes brought by AI.

Scott Schieman receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Alexander Wilson receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

– ref. Will AI automation really kill jobs? A new survey finds Canadian workers are split on the answer – https://theconversation.com/will-ai-automation-really-kill-jobs-a-new-survey-finds-canadian-workers-are-split-on-the-answer-268649

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Knut von Salzen, Senior Research Scientist, Marine Cloud Brightening Research Program, University of Washington

Winter is setting in across the Northern Hemisphere, and with it, cold and cloudy winter days. Clouds play a vital role in the environment, providing rain but also reflecting sunlight before it reaches the Earth’s surface.

But between 2003 and 2022, clouds over the North Atlantic and Northeast Pacific became less reflective, allowing more sunlight to reach the ocean surface and causing sea surface temperatures to rise.

My colleagues and I recent conducted research that shows global efforts to improve air quality have unintentionally accelerated climate warming by modifying clouds.

While cleaner air has major health benefits, decreasing the amount of particulate pollution has also reduced the cooling effect of clouds, accelerating climate warming.

Dimming clouds and rising temperatures

Our study relied on two decades of satellite data to analyze the impacts of changes in particulate pollution and climate warming on the clouds. The data shows that low-level clouds in the Northern Hemisphere have dimmed rapidly since 2003.

In particular, cloud reflectivity over the North Atlantic and Northeast Pacific has fallen by nearly three per cent per decade. During the same period, sea surface temperatures rose about 0.4 C, intensifying marine heatwaves that have damaged ecosystems and fisheries.

We expected that climate warming from greenhouse gas increases would lead to a decrease in low clouds over the ocean. However, the observed changes were too large to be explained by this process or by natural climate variability, pointing to an additional cause of warming that many climate models underestimated.

The key factor turned out to be aerosols — tiny particles that act as seeds for cloud droplets. When there are fewer aerosols, clouds contain fewer but larger droplets. Those droplets reflect less sunlight and are more likely to rain out quickly, producing shorter-lived, darker clouds. This process weakens the cooling influence that low clouds have over marine areas.

The effect stems from two known mechanisms: the Twomey effect, where fewer aerosols make clouds less reflective, and the Albrecht effect, where larger droplets shorten cloud lifetime. Together, these changes reduce the planet’s overall reflectivity.

A cleaner atmosphere, a warmer planet

Ultimately, our study exposes a paradox: cleaner air benefits human health while also revealing the full force of greenhouse-gas warming, which has historically been “masked” by the cooling effect of particulate pollution.

Sulfur dioxide (SO₂) emissions — the main source of sulfate aerosols — have fallen sharply as countries adopted stricter air-quality regulations. China’s SO₂ emissions alone dropped by about 16 million metric tonnes per decade since 2003, with similar reductions in the United States and Europe. Cleaner air means fewer aerosol particles available to form bright, reflective clouds.

Our study showed five to 10 per cent declines in cloud droplet concentrations, especially in regions where cloud brightness fell most. The close correspondence between reduced aerosols, larger droplet size and cloud dimming confirmed that cleaner air was driving regional warming.

We analyzed 24 Earth system models and found that most underestimated the magnitude and extent of observed cloud changes. Only models that accurately represented how aerosols affect clouds matched real-world observations, highlighting a major modelling weakness.

In our study, we separated the effects of particulate air-pollution cuts from cloud changes driven by general warming. The results showed that declining aerosols accounted for 69 per cent of the cloud reflectivity loss, while warming explained 31 per cent. Our simulations indicate that changes in cloud lifetime in response to having larger droplets (the Albrecht effect) proved more influential in the change in cloud droplet size itself (the Twomey effect).

Reduced cloud brightness in these ocean regions added about 0.15 watts per square metre (W/m²) per decade to Earth’s global energy imbalance, even though the regions cover only 14 per cent of the planet’s surface. Rising global CO₂ levels added roughly 0.31 W/m² per decade during the same time, meaning cleaner air produced nearly half as much additional warming as CO₂ itself in those areas.

This finding creates a policy challenge: air-quality improvements that save lives also remove a cooling shield that has been masking a significant portion of greenhouse-gas warming. Because aerosol emissions are projected to keep falling through mid-century, this “unmasking” could continue to contribute to faster rates of warming for decades.

Importance of continued observation

The satellites observing clouds and aerosols are nearing the end of their mission, with a phaseout expected in 2026. Long-term satellite monitoring proved essential for revealing the link between cleaner air, dimmer clouds and regional warming, and will continue to be essential for understanding future warming.

Our results suggest that many climate models may underestimate near-term regional warming as air particulate pollution declines. Improving the representation in models of how aerosols affect clouds and continuing global observations will be critical for more accurate projections.

Addressing the paradox of cleaner air uncovering hidden warming demands integrating air-quality and climate policy and accelerating the reduction of greenhouse gases — the only lasting way to cool the planet.

Knut von Salzen receives funding from the University of Washington’s Marine Cloud Brightening Research Program, which is funded by a consortium of individual and foundation donors. He is affiliated with the Climate Research Division of Environment and Climate Change Canada and the University of Victoria.

– ref. Reduced air pollution is making clouds reflect less sunlight – https://theconversation.com/reduced-air-pollution-is-making-clouds-reflect-less-sunlight-269805