Despite the commissioning of another process on how Australia could manage artificial intelligence, the Labor government will soon stop studying and start making key decisions about how (and how much) regulate rapid hot air balloon technology.
Like many regulatory questions in technological space – see the ban on social media under 16, the response long late to the Peta Murphy game advertising report and issues on the incentive of the news – any decision is likely to raise hackles of at least half, probably more, from participants to discussion.
The government finds itself caught up in the bond of corporate groups that itch for productivity gains, unions fearing to run wide expanses through risky staff, large technological companies wishing to sculptures and ordinary endball between the massive advantages and the extraordinary risks of thinking machines, all-festering search engines and countless discussion boots.
A week after the Jim Chalmers’s economic reform summit, we are not much closer to knowing where the Albanian government will land on the question of whether new overall legislation is necessary.
The Minister of Industry, Tim Ayres, oversees a national IA capacity plan, expected by the end of the year; An “deviation analysis”, announced as the result of the reform round table, is more an examination of existing processes already on foot around AI in the fields of health, privacy, copyright and online security. Other work focuses on the integration of AI into the public service, strengthening investments in data centers, training skills in AI and work in international forums to help shape global rules.
The problem bleeds in almost all wallets, and the government says it wants to take the time to do things well. But we know that there are wide and varied opinions between labor deputies, and a mood among some so that decisions are taken on what the government will do – either count on existing rules, or create a new AI law.
Despite diversity inside the caucus What To do, many want to see something Help you help Australia grab the moment and get ahead of the wave, or at least not to be captured by its crushing on us.
Pugn the government’s efforts to tackle the negative effects of social media, with its ban on the under 16s and plans to compensate for the media, certain labor sources have declared that it was a model case to explain why rapid and generational technology should be regulated appropriately from the start – rather than trying to play years later, years later,
But leaving the round table, the comments of various participants almost pretended that the only thing they could agree on the AI was that it presented positive and negative points. Chalmers gave vague answers about Reunion which accepts to make AI “a national priority and to do good”.
Almost every workplace in the country will have to understand how to react to AI. It is not an easy task. White passes to mechanics and publicans to civil servants, industries will be reshaped and the face of work has changed forever. It is crucial to make the goods to maximize the advantages and minimize the negatives. You don’t have a second chance to let the genius come out of the bottle.
It is an intimidating task for any government. But the most immediate result of the reform round table was a plan to “accelerate work” on the national level and to undertake an “deviation analysis”, which, according to Chalmers, would determine whether the government would pursue a new global law or count on existing rules.
The former Minister of Industry and Sciences, Ed Husic, was questioned by some for having implemented several criticisms in AI and not obtained a path of action; He had called for an act of autonomous AI. But since all large technological companies rush to create new AI models, the government remains in examination mode.
Perhaps a new permanent committee of the Parliament, to constantly consult the protean technology, would be useful – but establishing a broader government action plan is more urgent.
Ayres would be focused on capturing the benefits of the AI boon, exploiting the myriad of opportunities and not missing the boat. Its AI capacity plan has three basic pillars: capturing economic opportunities, sharing the advantages of new technology and security problems.
The GAP analysis, announced after the round table, is a little more fluid. It is anyone who can guess how long it will take to decide whether a new law is necessary.
But key players want change.
Questions remain on how to deal with copyright problems for major learning models, and if the government goes into technology giants looking for an exemption “data exploration” or artistic, creative and media companies requiring compensation or license agreements; A potential breakthrough between unions and the technological advice, teasing at the top, is still to bear fruit.
The unions always urge the protections for workers and the guarantees of the shared advantages.
The government can be stuck between considering a broader adoption as a major productivity measure, as well as an economic opportunity in data centers and the attraction of technological capital, and the protection of employees and the work they produce.
Where the Landing Lands on AI will be a decisive problem for the government for the years to come. Operating productivity gains, protecting workers and keeping a lid on potentially dangerous technology is a difficult act of balancing – but it will probably take years to find out if examination production during the exam was the right track and prudent, or similar to standing on the beach while debating the tidal wave on the point of crashing.
