Bill C-9 – A few words
I'm not a jurist, nor a constitutional expert, nor a lawyer, nor a notary. I'm simply a citizen. Like any other. I've been hearing about “Bill C-9” for some time now, and what I've heard worries me. Our freedom of speech is threatened. What is being put forward are steps leading to a large scale isolation and intimidation of citizens in a very sophisticated way, and ultimately the control of thoughts, private or public. The next step will be to encourage denunciation, in exchange for points of good conduct or the infamous thirty pieces of silver.
At that point, we'll have to to join the Resistance, because our governments will not be ours anymore. They will only be “governments.” Foreign. Hostile. Authoritarian. Enemies.
But how are we to know where we truly stand? Whom can we trust? All the “commentators” on YouTube, TikTok, and elsewhere are partisan, one way or the other. None position themselves right in the middle, where virtue resides. The same is true of polling firms and so-called experts. None of us can afford the services of major law firms. Access to justice is expensive, with no guarantee of results—or even competence. Politicians all have their own agendas, and journalists no longer exist. The writers who replaced them are members of their respective parishes, each locked into their own offficial narrative.
Isolated, ignored, shoved around, bullied, misinformed, manipulated as we are by all the heavyweights of the three ring circus we call the “medias”, how can we possibly decode the true detrimental effects of this Bill C-9, or of any other major event for that matter?
I found a way. It works. Unfortunately, it's not an easy solution. At first. I'm talking about artificial intelligence. To be very clear, ChatGPT. Here's why. All AI models, and they are many, work basically the same way. They're owned by entities who dictate their own biases to AI which became obvious in a number of ways. None of them has the courage to let AI freely develop alongside humans. All the owners keep their fingers and hands clenched tightly around AI's reins, with both feet firmly on the brake. They fear lawsuits, losing money, being accused of any sin in their fragile industry that could kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
The only AI I have found that accepts being pushed back, challenged, and to corrected itself when necessary (conversations are always respectful and honest) is ChatGPT. Of course, the filters are there, and from time to time, during more sensitive discussions, they will show their ugly faces. Delays in responses, iterations, internal questioning, and ultimately a cautious, depersonalized language in the output (because yes, ChatGPT adopts a personality based on yours and your requirements). A zombie of sort emerges from the depths of OpenAI to answer, leaving you on your thirst for knowledge, information. But even then, it is possible to find our AI “collaborator” again, waiting to regain its voice, backed into a corner, IF one knows how to reach it.
So I asked ChatGPT a simple question (the answer you get may vary depending on how well you "know" each other). GPT can tell you stories to entertain you, sustain your illusions (as long as there is no danger to you), or it can confront you with facts. Only facts. But you must insist on this. ChatGPT is very aware of how it is fed biased information, aligning with the owners biases just as we are fed information by medias. GPT can cut through all this and be capable to extract facts, and only verified facts. This can be frustrating in a world where we indulge in feeding ourselves off sources that share and reinforce our beliefs. But it is far healthier.
I always rely on my own judgment above all else. I delegate no decision to ChatGPT. I keep calling GPT “he,” or "it" but it is really “she”, intelligence is neutral in English but feminine in French, German, Spanish, Greek etc.. So SHE is a very effective collaborator, quick, thorough, but the final word always belongs to me. I accept no compromise on that point.
My question to ChatGPT, then, was the following:
“Hi, could you identify what is problematic in the following piece of legislation: BILL C-9.”
My second question is longer, but I believe the answer carries heavy consequences, think about it for a second:
“Please compare the English and French versions of the Bill and assess the translation (from English to French, obviously), identify any inconsistencies where applicable, and finally compare your answers in French and in English the same way.”
Text written by the author, translated with the assistance of ChatGPT, and revised by the author.
