Robots could unleash big gains in the care economy, says PC
In the commission's fifth and final report ahead of Treasurer Jim Chalmers' Economic Reform Roundtable next week, it also urged the government to create uniform rules on the use of AI across the whole care economy, rather than letting 'sector-specific approaches develop which create complexity and inconsistency'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
YouTube turns to AI to spot children posing as adults
YouTube has started using artificial intelligence (AI) to figure out when users are children pretending to be adults on the popular video-sharing platform amid pressure to protect minors from sensitive content. The new safeguard is being rolled out in the United States as Google-owned YouTube and social media platforms such as Instagram and TikTok are under scrutiny to shield children from content geared for grown-ups. A version of AI referred to as machine learning will be used to estimate the age of users based on a variety of factors, including the kinds of videos watched and account longevity, according to YouTube Youth director of product management James Beser. "This technology will allow us to infer a user's age and then use that signal, regardless of the birthday in the account, to deliver our age-appropriate product experiences and protections," Beser said. "We've used this approach in other markets for some time, where it is working well." The age-estimation model enhances technology already in place to deduce user age, according to YouTube. Users will be notified if YouTube believes them to be minors, giving them the option to verify their age with a credit card, selfie, or government ID, according to the tech firm. Social media platforms are regularly accused of failing to protect the well-being of children. Australia will soon use its landmark social media laws to ban children under 16 from YouTube, a top minister said late last month, stressing a need to shield them from "predatory algorithms." Communications Minister Anika Wells said four-in-ten Australian children had reported viewing harmful content on YouTube, one of the most visited websites in the world. Australia announced last year it was drafting laws that will ban children from social media sites such as Facebook, TikTok and Instagram until they turn 16. "Our position remains clear: YouTube is a video sharing platform with a library of free, high-quality content, increasingly viewed on TV screens," the company said in a statement at the time. "It's not social media." On paper, the ban is one of the strictest in the world. It is due to come into effect on December 10. The legislation has been closely monitored by other countries, with many weighing whether to implement similar bans. gc-juj/jgc
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Can Jim Chalmers reap a healthy crop with the help of his big worm farm?
One observer describes next week's economic roundtable this way: "Chalmers has opened a can of worms - and everybody has got a worm". Even those close to the roundtable are feeling overwhelmed by the extent of the worm farm. There are many hundreds of submissions, five Productivity Commission reports, Treasury background papers, and stakeholders in the media spruiking their opinions ahead of the event. Business, unions and the welfare sector have largely settled into their predictable wish lists. In areas such as the housing crisis, it's actually not difficult to say what should be done - you hardly need this meeting to tell you. It just seems near impossible to get the relevant players (whether they be states, local councils, the construction industry) to do it, or be able to do it. On issues of deregulation generally, when it comes to specifics, a lot is contested. As the ACTU's Sally McManus, who'll be at the roundtable, says, "one person's regulations are another person's rights". As much as Treasurer Jim Chalmers might like to project the sunny side of Australia's situation, independent economist Chris Richardson (who will be at the summit's day three tax session) puts it more bluntly. "We have a problem: the average Australian saw their living standards rise by just 1.5% over the past decade," he posted on X. "That's embarrassingly shy of the 22% lift in living standards enjoyed across the rich world as a whole, and way below what Australians achieved in times past. "You'd have hoped that both sides would have talked about tackling that challenge at the last election, but they didn't." Richardson is hoping the roundtable can achieve "enough consensus to change some things", which the government can use as a springboard. But he's worried the meeting could underperform, given its "lead-up hasn't seen much consensus", Economist Richard Holden from UNSW says to be successful, the roundtable needs to get "broad agreement on some version of the 'Abundance agenda' [a reference to a currently fashionable book focusing on loosening regulatory blocks] - especially as it applies to housing. "In addition, to be successful would require that big issues like federation and tax reform are referred to Treasury for serious consideration and to present the government with options by year's end." There are two approaches for a government that wants to promote economic reform. It can, as then treasurer Paul Keating did at the 1985 tax summit, put up a model and see how much it can make fly. Or it can, as Chalmers is doing, ask a wide range of participants for their ideas, and then decide how much of what emerges to pursue - in terms of what has wide support and what fits the government's agenda. The closer we get to the meeting, the harder it becomes to anticipate its likely import (or lack of). Signposts are there, but they could be false signals, or ignored later. Despite all the talk about tax, the government - specifically the Prime Minister - has flagged it doesn't have the stomach for radical reform. Certainly not this term. Anthony Albanese said last week, "The only tax policy that we're implementing is the one that we took to the election". This doesn't rule out new initiatives this term - the phrasing is carefully in the present tense - but from what we know of the PM's approach, they would likely be limited rather than sweeping. Independent economist Saul Eslake said that a few weeks ago, he was optimistic the summit would give Chalmers the licence to spend some of the vast political capital the election yielded. "But the Prime Minister has made it clear he is not getting that licence. The government is not prepared to venture much beyond its limited mandate from the election. "The best that can be hoped for is a willingness to have an adult conversation with the electorate between now and the next election with a view to seeking a bold mandate in 2028," Eslake says. Predictably, the roundtable is putting the spotlight on the Albanese-Chalmers relationship. This can be summed up in a couple of ways. The PM is more cautious when it comes to economic reform, the treasurer is more ambitious. In political terms, it's that "old bull, young bull" syndrome. The different styles are clear. The "old bull" is blunt, sounding a touch impatient, for example, when he's asked about tax. The "young bull" is publicly deferential to his leader. One of the most potentially significant discussions at the roundtable will be around AI. Unlike many well-worn issues, this is a relatively new and quickly changing area of policy debate. There are varying views within government about whether firm or light guardrails are needed and whether they should be in a separate new act or just via changes to existing laws. READ MORE GRATTAN: Chalmers is in favour of light-touch regulation. The unions are not on the same page as Chalmers' regulatory preference, and they want a say for workers. The unions were the winners from the 2022 jobs and skills summit - the government delivered to them in spades at the meeting, and later. It's not clear they are in as strong a position this time. Their big claim for the roundtable - a four-day working week - has already been dismissed by the government. The ACTU doesn't seem much fussed by the rejection - it is on a long march on that one. Regardless of the diversity of views among those rubbing shoulders in the cabinet room next week, one man will stand out as something of an oddity. Ted O'Brien, shadow treasurer, invited as a participant, will be as much an observer. O'Brien might say he wants to be constructive, but his role means he will want to be critical. But he has to tread carefully. Others in the room, and outside observers, will be making judgments about him. For O'Brien, the gathering should be a networking opportunity more than an occasion for performative display. One observer describes next week's economic roundtable this way: "Chalmers has opened a can of worms - and everybody has got a worm". Even those close to the roundtable are feeling overwhelmed by the extent of the worm farm. There are many hundreds of submissions, five Productivity Commission reports, Treasury background papers, and stakeholders in the media spruiking their opinions ahead of the event. Business, unions and the welfare sector have largely settled into their predictable wish lists. In areas such as the housing crisis, it's actually not difficult to say what should be done - you hardly need this meeting to tell you. It just seems near impossible to get the relevant players (whether they be states, local councils, the construction industry) to do it, or be able to do it. On issues of deregulation generally, when it comes to specifics, a lot is contested. As the ACTU's Sally McManus, who'll be at the roundtable, says, "one person's regulations are another person's rights". As much as Treasurer Jim Chalmers might like to project the sunny side of Australia's situation, independent economist Chris Richardson (who will be at the summit's day three tax session) puts it more bluntly. "We have a problem: the average Australian saw their living standards rise by just 1.5% over the past decade," he posted on X. "That's embarrassingly shy of the 22% lift in living standards enjoyed across the rich world as a whole, and way below what Australians achieved in times past. "You'd have hoped that both sides would have talked about tackling that challenge at the last election, but they didn't." Richardson is hoping the roundtable can achieve "enough consensus to change some things", which the government can use as a springboard. But he's worried the meeting could underperform, given its "lead-up hasn't seen much consensus", Economist Richard Holden from UNSW says to be successful, the roundtable needs to get "broad agreement on some version of the 'Abundance agenda' [a reference to a currently fashionable book focusing on loosening regulatory blocks] - especially as it applies to housing. "In addition, to be successful would require that big issues like federation and tax reform are referred to Treasury for serious consideration and to present the government with options by year's end." There are two approaches for a government that wants to promote economic reform. It can, as then treasurer Paul Keating did at the 1985 tax summit, put up a model and see how much it can make fly. Or it can, as Chalmers is doing, ask a wide range of participants for their ideas, and then decide how much of what emerges to pursue - in terms of what has wide support and what fits the government's agenda. The closer we get to the meeting, the harder it becomes to anticipate its likely import (or lack of). Signposts are there, but they could be false signals, or ignored later. Despite all the talk about tax, the government - specifically the Prime Minister - has flagged it doesn't have the stomach for radical reform. Certainly not this term. Anthony Albanese said last week, "The only tax policy that we're implementing is the one that we took to the election". This doesn't rule out new initiatives this term - the phrasing is carefully in the present tense - but from what we know of the PM's approach, they would likely be limited rather than sweeping. Independent economist Saul Eslake said that a few weeks ago, he was optimistic the summit would give Chalmers the licence to spend some of the vast political capital the election yielded. "But the Prime Minister has made it clear he is not getting that licence. The government is not prepared to venture much beyond its limited mandate from the election. "The best that can be hoped for is a willingness to have an adult conversation with the electorate between now and the next election with a view to seeking a bold mandate in 2028," Eslake says. Predictably, the roundtable is putting the spotlight on the Albanese-Chalmers relationship. This can be summed up in a couple of ways. The PM is more cautious when it comes to economic reform, the treasurer is more ambitious. In political terms, it's that "old bull, young bull" syndrome. The different styles are clear. The "old bull" is blunt, sounding a touch impatient, for example, when he's asked about tax. The "young bull" is publicly deferential to his leader. One of the most potentially significant discussions at the roundtable will be around AI. Unlike many well-worn issues, this is a relatively new and quickly changing area of policy debate. There are varying views within government about whether firm or light guardrails are needed and whether they should be in a separate new act or just via changes to existing laws. READ MORE GRATTAN: Chalmers is in favour of light-touch regulation. The unions are not on the same page as Chalmers' regulatory preference, and they want a say for workers. The unions were the winners from the 2022 jobs and skills summit - the government delivered to them in spades at the meeting, and later. It's not clear they are in as strong a position this time. Their big claim for the roundtable - a four-day working week - has already been dismissed by the government. The ACTU doesn't seem much fussed by the rejection - it is on a long march on that one. Regardless of the diversity of views among those rubbing shoulders in the cabinet room next week, one man will stand out as something of an oddity. Ted O'Brien, shadow treasurer, invited as a participant, will be as much an observer. O'Brien might say he wants to be constructive, but his role means he will want to be critical. But he has to tread carefully. Others in the room, and outside observers, will be making judgments about him. For O'Brien, the gathering should be a networking opportunity more than an occasion for performative display. One observer describes next week's economic roundtable this way: "Chalmers has opened a can of worms - and everybody has got a worm". Even those close to the roundtable are feeling overwhelmed by the extent of the worm farm. There are many hundreds of submissions, five Productivity Commission reports, Treasury background papers, and stakeholders in the media spruiking their opinions ahead of the event. Business, unions and the welfare sector have largely settled into their predictable wish lists. In areas such as the housing crisis, it's actually not difficult to say what should be done - you hardly need this meeting to tell you. It just seems near impossible to get the relevant players (whether they be states, local councils, the construction industry) to do it, or be able to do it. On issues of deregulation generally, when it comes to specifics, a lot is contested. As the ACTU's Sally McManus, who'll be at the roundtable, says, "one person's regulations are another person's rights". As much as Treasurer Jim Chalmers might like to project the sunny side of Australia's situation, independent economist Chris Richardson (who will be at the summit's day three tax session) puts it more bluntly. "We have a problem: the average Australian saw their living standards rise by just 1.5% over the past decade," he posted on X. "That's embarrassingly shy of the 22% lift in living standards enjoyed across the rich world as a whole, and way below what Australians achieved in times past. "You'd have hoped that both sides would have talked about tackling that challenge at the last election, but they didn't." Richardson is hoping the roundtable can achieve "enough consensus to change some things", which the government can use as a springboard. But he's worried the meeting could underperform, given its "lead-up hasn't seen much consensus", Economist Richard Holden from UNSW says to be successful, the roundtable needs to get "broad agreement on some version of the 'Abundance agenda' [a reference to a currently fashionable book focusing on loosening regulatory blocks] - especially as it applies to housing. "In addition, to be successful would require that big issues like federation and tax reform are referred to Treasury for serious consideration and to present the government with options by year's end." There are two approaches for a government that wants to promote economic reform. It can, as then treasurer Paul Keating did at the 1985 tax summit, put up a model and see how much it can make fly. Or it can, as Chalmers is doing, ask a wide range of participants for their ideas, and then decide how much of what emerges to pursue - in terms of what has wide support and what fits the government's agenda. The closer we get to the meeting, the harder it becomes to anticipate its likely import (or lack of). Signposts are there, but they could be false signals, or ignored later. Despite all the talk about tax, the government - specifically the Prime Minister - has flagged it doesn't have the stomach for radical reform. Certainly not this term. Anthony Albanese said last week, "The only tax policy that we're implementing is the one that we took to the election". This doesn't rule out new initiatives this term - the phrasing is carefully in the present tense - but from what we know of the PM's approach, they would likely be limited rather than sweeping. Independent economist Saul Eslake said that a few weeks ago, he was optimistic the summit would give Chalmers the licence to spend some of the vast political capital the election yielded. "But the Prime Minister has made it clear he is not getting that licence. The government is not prepared to venture much beyond its limited mandate from the election. "The best that can be hoped for is a willingness to have an adult conversation with the electorate between now and the next election with a view to seeking a bold mandate in 2028," Eslake says. Predictably, the roundtable is putting the spotlight on the Albanese-Chalmers relationship. This can be summed up in a couple of ways. The PM is more cautious when it comes to economic reform, the treasurer is more ambitious. In political terms, it's that "old bull, young bull" syndrome. The different styles are clear. The "old bull" is blunt, sounding a touch impatient, for example, when he's asked about tax. The "young bull" is publicly deferential to his leader. One of the most potentially significant discussions at the roundtable will be around AI. Unlike many well-worn issues, this is a relatively new and quickly changing area of policy debate. There are varying views within government about whether firm or light guardrails are needed and whether they should be in a separate new act or just via changes to existing laws. READ MORE GRATTAN: Chalmers is in favour of light-touch regulation. The unions are not on the same page as Chalmers' regulatory preference, and they want a say for workers. The unions were the winners from the 2022 jobs and skills summit - the government delivered to them in spades at the meeting, and later. It's not clear they are in as strong a position this time. Their big claim for the roundtable - a four-day working week - has already been dismissed by the government. The ACTU doesn't seem much fussed by the rejection - it is on a long march on that one. Regardless of the diversity of views among those rubbing shoulders in the cabinet room next week, one man will stand out as something of an oddity. Ted O'Brien, shadow treasurer, invited as a participant, will be as much an observer. O'Brien might say he wants to be constructive, but his role means he will want to be critical. But he has to tread carefully. Others in the room, and outside observers, will be making judgments about him. For O'Brien, the gathering should be a networking opportunity more than an occasion for performative display. One observer describes next week's economic roundtable this way: "Chalmers has opened a can of worms - and everybody has got a worm". Even those close to the roundtable are feeling overwhelmed by the extent of the worm farm. There are many hundreds of submissions, five Productivity Commission reports, Treasury background papers, and stakeholders in the media spruiking their opinions ahead of the event. Business, unions and the welfare sector have largely settled into their predictable wish lists. In areas such as the housing crisis, it's actually not difficult to say what should be done - you hardly need this meeting to tell you. It just seems near impossible to get the relevant players (whether they be states, local councils, the construction industry) to do it, or be able to do it. On issues of deregulation generally, when it comes to specifics, a lot is contested. As the ACTU's Sally McManus, who'll be at the roundtable, says, "one person's regulations are another person's rights". As much as Treasurer Jim Chalmers might like to project the sunny side of Australia's situation, independent economist Chris Richardson (who will be at the summit's day three tax session) puts it more bluntly. "We have a problem: the average Australian saw their living standards rise by just 1.5% over the past decade," he posted on X. "That's embarrassingly shy of the 22% lift in living standards enjoyed across the rich world as a whole, and way below what Australians achieved in times past. "You'd have hoped that both sides would have talked about tackling that challenge at the last election, but they didn't." Richardson is hoping the roundtable can achieve "enough consensus to change some things", which the government can use as a springboard. But he's worried the meeting could underperform, given its "lead-up hasn't seen much consensus", Economist Richard Holden from UNSW says to be successful, the roundtable needs to get "broad agreement on some version of the 'Abundance agenda' [a reference to a currently fashionable book focusing on loosening regulatory blocks] - especially as it applies to housing. "In addition, to be successful would require that big issues like federation and tax reform are referred to Treasury for serious consideration and to present the government with options by year's end." There are two approaches for a government that wants to promote economic reform. It can, as then treasurer Paul Keating did at the 1985 tax summit, put up a model and see how much it can make fly. Or it can, as Chalmers is doing, ask a wide range of participants for their ideas, and then decide how much of what emerges to pursue - in terms of what has wide support and what fits the government's agenda. The closer we get to the meeting, the harder it becomes to anticipate its likely import (or lack of). Signposts are there, but they could be false signals, or ignored later. Despite all the talk about tax, the government - specifically the Prime Minister - has flagged it doesn't have the stomach for radical reform. Certainly not this term. Anthony Albanese said last week, "The only tax policy that we're implementing is the one that we took to the election". This doesn't rule out new initiatives this term - the phrasing is carefully in the present tense - but from what we know of the PM's approach, they would likely be limited rather than sweeping. Independent economist Saul Eslake said that a few weeks ago, he was optimistic the summit would give Chalmers the licence to spend some of the vast political capital the election yielded. "But the Prime Minister has made it clear he is not getting that licence. The government is not prepared to venture much beyond its limited mandate from the election. "The best that can be hoped for is a willingness to have an adult conversation with the electorate between now and the next election with a view to seeking a bold mandate in 2028," Eslake says. Predictably, the roundtable is putting the spotlight on the Albanese-Chalmers relationship. This can be summed up in a couple of ways. The PM is more cautious when it comes to economic reform, the treasurer is more ambitious. In political terms, it's that "old bull, young bull" syndrome. The different styles are clear. The "old bull" is blunt, sounding a touch impatient, for example, when he's asked about tax. The "young bull" is publicly deferential to his leader. One of the most potentially significant discussions at the roundtable will be around AI. Unlike many well-worn issues, this is a relatively new and quickly changing area of policy debate. There are varying views within government about whether firm or light guardrails are needed and whether they should be in a separate new act or just via changes to existing laws. READ MORE GRATTAN: Chalmers is in favour of light-touch regulation. The unions are not on the same page as Chalmers' regulatory preference, and they want a say for workers. The unions were the winners from the 2022 jobs and skills summit - the government delivered to them in spades at the meeting, and later. It's not clear they are in as strong a position this time. Their big claim for the roundtable - a four-day working week - has already been dismissed by the government. The ACTU doesn't seem much fussed by the rejection - it is on a long march on that one. Regardless of the diversity of views among those rubbing shoulders in the cabinet room next week, one man will stand out as something of an oddity. Ted O'Brien, shadow treasurer, invited as a participant, will be as much an observer. O'Brien might say he wants to be constructive, but his role means he will want to be critical. But he has to tread carefully. Others in the room, and outside observers, will be making judgments about him. For O'Brien, the gathering should be a networking opportunity more than an occasion for performative display.
ABC News
5 hours ago
- ABC News
AI could be the government's productivity answer. But getting there will mean more disruption
For many Australians, artificial intelligence is already disrupting their work. Among them is voice actor Colin Cassidy, who after decades of building his career said he had his voice cloned without his consent. "It's a little bit like a redundancy which is very stressful from a mental health point of view," he said. "But it goes deeper because it's your biometric data, it's part of you." Mr Cassidy estimated his booking numbers have reduced by 30 per cent due to AI. He said the voice-over industry, which is already being hit hard by cloning, is the "canary in the coal mine". "AI is here to stay and it's going to continue to develop and put more voice overs out of work, which is a tragedy." While the full extent of future job losses from AI is not known, the World Economic Forums expects at least 9 million jobs could be displaced globally, and the nature of work for even more could change dramatically. A report from Jobs and Skills Australia this week however found AI was more likely to augment human work than replace it, highlighting the importance of people having the right digital and AI skills for a modern labour market. Modelling by non-profit organisation The Social Policy Group last year found a third of the Australian workforce could be disrupted by 2030 due to the adoption of AI. Impacted industries included agriculture, mining, manufacturing, retail trade, telecommunications and real estate services, as AI streamlines operations, automates tasks and enables data-driven decision-making. Australian businesses are already adopting AI through automating technology such as forklifts, irrigation systems and check-out systems in retail stores and supermarkets. In manufacturing, robots are increasingly helping with tasks such as assembling, packaging and distribution. AI is also listing properties, screening tenants and managing leases in real estate, as well as performing document reviews and legal research — tasks typically done by paralegals and junior lawyers. But it's these disruptions that could deliver a $116 billion productivity boost to Australia's economy, according to the Productivity Commission's estimates. Nicholas Davis is a co-director of the Human Technology Institute at the University of Technology Sydney, whose research focuses on ethical and responsible use of AI. He said potential job losses due to AI fall into two categories. "One category is where your job has a bunch of tasks that are relatively repetitive and routine and therefore can be understood and done by digital systems," Mr Davis said. "The second is people who do things that are relatively complex and valuable but for which we see specific AI applications coming out now, like voice cloning." Mr Davis said the more diverse a worker's job tasks are, the better their protection from AI. "The more that is a mix of interactive, human facing, client facing, public facing activity, the more you're probably less worried at this stage," he said. Ahead of the federal government's productivity round table next week, the Productivity Commission warned over-regulation could stifle AI's multi-billion-dollar economic potential. At the time, Treasurer Jim Chalmers welcomed the report, calling AI a "game changer" for the Australian economy. "We can chart a middle course that makes our workers and our people and our industries' beneficiaries, not victims of technological change," he said. Skills and Training Minister Andrew Giles said the government was focused on supporting Australians to make the most of the benefits of AI, "including in how people can upskill to use it in their day-to-day work". "We recognise this is a deeply complex issue. We are stepping through these issues carefully, ensuring that our approach to AI regulation is aligned with Australian values, and benefits Australians," Mr Giles said. In the past, technological advances have seen businesses expand, such as the introduction of ATMs. "The fear was that would take away bank teller jobs and it actually ended up increasing employment," Mr Davis said. "By making it easier to withdraw money, it lowered the cost of having the branch. "It meant there was an expansion of other services, including lending mortgages and other aspects that increased net employment." But Mr Davis warned it would be a mistake to assume that all productivity benefits would materialise. "We're really focused on hoping that all these benefits will occur and trying to push off the thought that maybe some of it won't," Mr Davis said. There are growing calls from unions and creative industries for better regulation of the technology to protect jobs. Unions will head into next week's round table calling for mandatory enforceable agreements that would ensure employers consult with staff before new AI technologies can be introduced. Mr Davis's research found businesses can harness greater benefits from AI if they include workers in the adoption process. "Worker engagement around AI is not a nice to have ... it's actually an essential component of realising the productivity gains from the new technology." He said there were currently "huge gaps" in privacy law and copyright intellectual law that needed to be filled. "Far from being a barrier to innovation, the organisations I speak to want regulatory certainty, they want to know what the rules are, they want to know that makes them trustworthy as they use AI," he said. "AI is a really powerful and transformative set of technologies. "It would be silly of us to say let's just let it rip without saying, 'Hold on a second, what benefits do we want and how can we best get those?'" Earlier this month former industry minister Ed Husic also advocated for an AI Act that could help to safeguard against its risks. But Tech Council of Australia chair Scott Farquhar has urged the government not to regulate as a first resort. Earlier this week, he said many of the harms that are known now are covered by existing regulation. He expected some jobs would be lost, such as call centre workers, but said jobs could also be created out of AI and an increased number of data centres. "I'm asking the unions to help us train new jobs and let's get them done faster so it's not a four-year apprenticeship," he told 730. "I'm asking unions to help us evolve for jobs there are less of, how do we get those people into new jobs?" Mr Cassidy has adapted to AI by engaging in more performative work, and is also exploring ethically cloning his voice. He wants to see specific AI regulation as well as support for artists when it comes to enforcement of existing or future laws. "I don't have the budget to take this to court and go the full mile," Mr Cassidy said. "There are hundreds of situations like mine that need financial help, need legal help, need sponsorship in some way to actually communicate the depth, length and breadth of this problem."
