u/Existing_Ad3299

This is the only place I could think to start. I run my own business supporting smaller construction companies to get it together and start winning more work (the shortest summary I can give). I need to employ a civil estimator and a civil engineer with design experience. The work is mainly tendering and pre-contractual. \ Before I go out to market, I had a bright idea (or a silly one): there may be a mum or dad who doesn't want to return to full-time work and needs to work from home. This industry is hard for that unless you are a contractor yourself. Ideally, I would love to support another parent to keep working without having to put their baby into full-time daycare if that is their preference.

My challenge is that I have no idea where to ask around because the two big Facebook mums' groups don't take posts like these. Which parenting forums would be open to this? I feel like a " Jobs for the mums/dads" page would be handy right now. Any thoughts?

It may not be the right sub, but I'm casting a broad net.

How are you actually getting transparency out of your AI vendors?

In Australia, regulatory pressure isn't there yet, and vendors aren't required to provide full details of performance test results, bias and fairness assessments, and hallucination rates. When I ask for evidence that training data is ethically sourced and representative of the people the system will be used on, the answer is almost always "proprietary."

I'm not asking for model weights. I just want the kind of evidence that, if shit goes sideways, will be needed to show that we did our due diligence on any high-stakes deployment. It's hard to do meaningful governance work when the people building the systems won't tell you how they were built or how they actually perform.

For those of you in markets with stronger regulatory pressure, are you genuinely getting this from vendors? And if so, how? Procurement language, contractual requirements, model cards, third-party audits, regulatory disclosure? And once you have it, is it actually usable, or still surface-level marketing? Same for those in Australia. How are you managing this?

A question for AI governance and risk folks in the EU and US.

How are you actually getting transparency out of your AI vendors?

In Australia, the regulatory pressure isn't really there yet, and vendors know it. When I ask for performance test results, bias and fairness assessments, hallucination rates, or evidence that training data is ethically sourced and representative of the people the system will be used on, the answer is almost always "proprietary."

I'm not asking for model weights. I'm asking for the kind of evidence that should be table stakes for any high-stakes deployment. It's hard to do meaningful governance work when the people building the systems won't tell you how they were built or how they actually perform.

For those of you in markets with stronger regulatory pressure, are you genuinely getting this from vendors? And if so, how? Procurement language, contractual requirements, model cards, third-party audits, regulatory disclosure? And once you have it, is it actually usable, or still surface-level marketing?

For those of you who aren't getting it either, how are you managing the gap?