Though last week’s Caribbean Media Summit hosted in Jamaica by the Media Institute of the Caribbean (MIC), Association of Caribbean MediaWorkers (ACM), and Press Association of Jamaica (PAJ) focused primarily on Artificial Intelligence (AI) media and journalism, ominous public policy measures loomed in the background.
In fact, while media industry standards and
self-regulation were emphasised throughout as singularly effective in
addressing most concerns, numerous conversations over the three days of
activities drifted seamlessly into what regional governments may plan to do
about the unfolding phenomenon of “Generative AI” – the occurrence of content
produced by AI.
One online contributor (there were almost
200 participants on the Zoom connection and another 30-40 physically present) surmised
that the region’s customary technology “lag” was on display, and I thought out
loud that perhaps our delay in fully entering the process can provide some
small space to consider more carefully how willing we really are to entertain
regulatory arms of the state.
It would also provide time to consider
human rights, including freedom of expression, as an indispensable element of
the unfolding scenario.
I have long been of the view that almost
everything new to enter our post-colonial space has confronted a prohibition
default. Few better issues than the major revolution of artificial intelligence
to instil the kind of fear required to have officialdom activate regulatory
drawbridges.
It became clear as the Summit proceeded
that even among liberal-minded media professionals there was a view that
caution on the side of official control ought to be a preferred option.
This left precious few of us standing
alone. I had mocked the admonitory notion that “non-human intervention” into
public values and standards presented grave dangers and advised that such
intrusions were nothing new in our context and that perhaps organised religion
(relatively free, as it were, from official sanction) can be cited as being
among acceptable exceptions.
Yes, this was highly mischievous on my
part, but I thought that the sorcerous implications of AI being described there
could have served only to invoke the kinds of feelings that make us want to
arrest and jail one another … or to shut each other up. So, yes, I continue to
subscribe to the view that fewer regulations on public communication produce
superior results over more laws, codes, and punitive official measures.
It is also true that today’s virtual
realities have rendered most forms of regulatory coercion on expression an
anachronism of the highest order. If anything, sanctions unilaterally
determined by the major global platforms have been far more effective at
imposing regimes of censorship.
Last year, for example, my social media photograph
of raw oysters was flagged under some opaque requirement to adhere to “Community
Standards.” Last week, the same strange message notifying of a decision to
block a post appeared when I submitted an excerpt from this newspaper column!
And I knew I was not being naughty.
We customarily protest these measures
citing flawed algorithms or even AI itself, but the point I am making is that
to a large extent, Big Tech companies such as Meta (Facebook), Alphabet
(Google), Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft have outgrown most governments in
influencing online behaviours – many times irrationally and wrongly so.
There is thus a vigorous, nuanced
discussion on how best to rein in these global superpowers in a manner that
does not compromise the right to freedom of expression of their users.
Additionally, and getting back to Mark
Lyndersay’s “time lag” (yes, it was him), the slow pace of digitalisation by
our countries has created a situation in which the mining of online content for
purposes of AI content creation grossly under-represents our actual reality.
UNESCO’s unfolding Caribbean AI Policy
Roadmap flags some of these issues but takes aim more directly at the potential
developmental impact of informed, ethical usage. There are significant provisos
though that point to aspirations that are current deficiencies.
These include our ability to adapt
effectively to technological advances, appropriate governance mechanisms for
development and use, and ensuring that the challenges of sustainable
development, the climate crisis, and socio-economic inequities can be addressed.
But all of this would be a tall order in
the face of deficiencies in the areas of training and education, and the urgent
need to promote greater digital literacy among our populations. These
shortcomings cannot be legislated into resolution. My supposedly anarchic prescription,
bypassing the instinct to command and control, appears eminently feasible under
the circumstances.
