By Liana Yadav

Amid rapid developments in technology—particularily in artificial intelligence (AI)—Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) professor and director of Zone Learning at The Creative School, Richard Lachman, is arguing for stakeholders to reassess and slow down in his new book, Digital Wisdom: Agency in the Age of AI, released in February.

In an interview with The Eyeopener, Lachman said the way technology has developed in recent years is not the “only way” it could have. 

In the mid 90s during his university days, Lachman said, “we thought the internet is going to be an incredible force for good” but it came with negative consequences as well.

Lachman graduated from the computer science program at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, then went on to earn a doctorate at University of New England in Australia. In that time, he’s seen tech develop rapidly and infiltrate all sectors of society. 

For exmaple, Lachman said just when we’re starting to wrestle with social media’s ramifications, with lawsuits protecting young people, we now have AI. 

Instead of looking at AI’s distant potential of abundance or doom, Lachman proposes a perspective dubbed ‘Realtechnik,’ which aims to solve problems that come with the tech.

“The term comes from politics,” he said. Realpolitik means thinking about how people “actually behave in their cities, in their relationship with one another…and with institutions,” he said.

Similarly, Realtechnik suggests a pragmatic and practical approach to technology. “It’s not what it [technology] could do. It’s what it’s doing now.”

At present, there is no legislative framework set in place in Canada specific to AI. The Artificial Intelligence and Data Act was proposed in 2022 to “set the foundation for the responsible design, development and deployment of AI systems that impact the lives of Canadians.” But in January 2025, the bill was terminated after former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation.

When it comes to technology, “we release it and then maybe we back up a little bit and release a new version after it has caused harm,” Lachman said. “It is okay for us to slow down something that may benefit people if we also believe it may harm them.”

In Digital Age, the professor coins “Lachman’s Law,” which warns readers to “be wary of critiquing tech that doesn’t work yet, when you mean to criticise whether it should work at all.”

He said, “In these ways, when we’re looking at the capability of something, we can sometimes say no to a technology. Not just because it is not good enough yet, but even if it got perfect, we don’t want it to be functioning in this way.”

He also pointed out the political and economic pressure from U.S. companies—­Meta, Google, Amazon—who crack down on any independent desire to regulate.

An investigation by Proton, a VPN service provider, found that Google, Apple and Meta have shared the data of 6.9 million accounts with U.S. authorities. The report also points to the “privacy tradeoff” made by users when they unknowingly share their data in exchange for a personalised experience on the platform.

Lachman said regulation, in  addition to individual choice and  institutional decisions, is an important way to protect against harm from technology but “we need to vote for this.”

He said students can make a difference. In the future, they could find themselves in decision-making positions in AI development and deployment in their daily lives. 

AI use has been rampant in academia since ChatGPT’s release in 2023. But Lachman says AI can make educators and students more intentional, despite the disruption.

In some ways, generative AI “is pushing us as educators to do things we should have been doing a long time ago,” he said. 

For students, Lachman said some of them have become “much more deliberate about their own educational process,” knowing to put in effort to get the most out of their time in school, rather than relying on AI.

Despite the odds, Lachman is still excited about the future of AI if societal changes are made now. Fundamentally a technologist, he believes in the potential and capability of tech tools and wants to see a future that contains and constraints them.

To make that possible, he calls for a push against companies who choose the path of least resistance and the highest generative value if left unchecked. 

Lachman doesn’t believe change happens by waiting for companies like Facebook, Google or Apple to come up with their next product and hope it’s better. 

“It’s only by us making choices…about what we want to do with technology and presenting those opportunities with new product design or in some cases, designing those things ourselves.”