Artificial Intelligence, Government Employment and Productivity: Implications for Canadian Federal Government Employment and Costs From AI-augmented Services Implementation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
For any government, being responsible with the taxes of its citizens is of the upmost importance. Therefore, the services it provides must be of the highest quality and efficiency. In recent years, that expectation was unrealized by the average Canadian citizen. Federal services continue to be slow, bothersome, unsatisfactory, and inefficient. However, new technological investment could reverse this course and facilitate a more efficient and satisfactory service. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a group of cognitive technologies that could provide such changes. As AI is increasing in ubiquity across all sectors of the economy and society at large, there is a substantial debate over how AI will affect them. While there is substantial optimism of the eventual productivity growth and new job creation, there is also pessimism that the technologies will replace far more jobs than they create. Some estimates project that nearly half of the current American jobs will be replaced with AI labour in the next 40 or so years. AI is proving itself to be a general purpose technology that will change the shape of how businesses are run and how the economy is structured. However, this is causing a substantial amount of concern associated with middle class income and employment growth. [vii] In the next 5 to 7-year period, Ai will continue to cause disruptions in employment decisions in all sectors of the economy—that includes government work. As such, the Canadian federal government needs to formulate a plan regarding if and how much it should invest into AI. This study explores the effects of AI on the Canadian government based on comparative studies of AI on US government employment. It finds that in a medium-term timeframe, the federal government could accrue an annual benefit of up to $4.1 billion annually from forgone salary costs from a sample of 23 departments and agencies. These savings are from up to 97 million annual labour-hours that could be replaced through a high level of investment into AI. Based on a comparative analysis with developments in the United States, a number of policy recommendations are advanced. These include the following. • Start investing into AI technologies today. The benefits from machine learning and the development processes are compounding. The earlier the government starts, the sooner they can produce increasing efficiencies. • Provide AI literacy training for the current workforce. This prepares and equips government workers to adapt to complementary tasks and prevents morale disruptions. • Reduce the workforce. Government jobs that become predominantly redundant should be eliminated with prudent investment of the savings in salary costs. • Consult citizens. Citizen input is critical for AI implementation to foster political support for a long process that might not produce visible results quickly. • Avoid AI decision-making. For ethical reasons, humans should be the primary decision makers to prevent data biases.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».