It was last week that the prime minister stood in front of three grieving parents to announce that YouTube would be included in the child's social media ban. One father held ur as he denounced social media about his daughter's loss.
This is a strong example of the government, with bipartisan support, and scrambled to catch up after the horse bolted new technology.
The other was the news media negotiation code introduced by the Morrison government. I was forced to cough on Google and Facebook for news content clicking on the site.
Aside from discussion of the effectiveness of both moves, they represent an attempt to renovate regulations to at least partially place the genie of social media at the bottle.
It brings us to the current debate about whether to regulate artificial intelligence.
Loading…
Roundtable loom for economic reform
When the Treasurer Reform Roundtable kicks off in two weeks, at least a long, long-delinquent debate has erupted at the point of what role the government should play in setting AI road rules if nothing else can be achieved.
This technology is already above us. AI is involved whenever you use search engines, digital assistants (think Siri or Alexa), streaming services (think Netflix), and social media. Banks, big tech and cybersecurity companies are all racing to deploy it.
Even the care sector is rapidly developing ways to exploit opportunities.
The Brotherhood of St. Lawrence, a social justice organization providing care, disability and other community services for the elderly, recently conducted an eight-week trial of the AI Tool.
The results were overwhelmingly positive. Staff involved found that AI saved about an hour a day. This allowed us to focus more on the team and participants. The technology has also improved accessibility for language barriers and neural style staff.
“AI has great potential to help community organizations work smarter, reach out to more people and tackle long-standing barriers to access and equity. “AI used responsibly can free human time in a way that can impact the communities we work and support.”
The benefits are clear, but McLeod points to the importance of “a clear framework for legal and ethical AI use, along with strong ethical guardrails and environmental impacts, particularly in the care economy.”
“AI must be used as an accelerator of better outcomes for all, not as a way to widen inequality and poverty,” he said.
This is where the role of government appears.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers is optimistic, and the benefits of AI ultimately outweigh the risks. (ABC News: Ian Cutmore))
Union and business group weight
Some of these AI “guardrails” already exist in the care sector. Some also exist in other sectors. There are federal privacy laws, some states have human rights laws, and some industries have specialized guidelines.
However, there is no one set of rules about the entire economy that governs the “ethical” use of AI, or how it can be used to replace human workers.
This is an upset argument ahead of the treasurer's roundtable.
At one end of the spectrum, we have an ACTU that ensures that staff will be consulted before they are deployed before they are deployed, in order to oversee “enforceable contracts” in all workplaces.
At the other end of the spectrum, the business group and the productivity committee want as much regulation as possible. They argue that existing rules are sufficient and that they do not want to slow down any technology that is deemed essential to Australia's future success.
Loading…
“A wise middle pass”
Treasurer Jim Chalmers pitches himself to this as something like Goldilock. He says he wants to find the right balance between overregulation and underregulation.
This “wise middle pass” diagrams the course on AI regulation between those who want to “rip” and those who want to “pull a doona above their head,” as Chalmers calls it.
This sounds completely rational, but in particular represents the rejection of the union movement's position. Before this roundtable begins, the treasurer says no to one of Actu's biggest requests.
Certainly, accounting is openly siding with the Productivity Committee on this. “The wide direction of the PC is pretty much in line with the instructions set for the weekend,” meaning that AI should be treated as an enabler, not an enemy.
Given that this fundamental difference between the coalition movement and the labor government over AI is merely the beginning of AI transformation, it could be a greater point of friction beyond this month's roundtable.
AI will change the way we live and work more and more. There is a lost job. Hopefully new roles will also be created. If this transformation leads, predictions are difficult, but the chances of the path being smooth are low.
After putting that interest on the ground, the ACTU is there every time a job is lost, demanding AI rules that are much stricter than the government would try to accept.
The government is trying to find the right balance between preventing massive redundancy forced by AI, preventing Australia from falling behind these countries, and rapidly embracing technology.
Chalmers are optimistic, and profits ultimately outweigh risks. He wouldn't want to be the prime minister trying to revamp the regulations 10 years from now after the AI horse was bolted.
David Speers is the national political lead and insider host, airing on ABC TV on Sundays at 9am or Iview.
Load
