Speaker 1: I'm Ruby Jones and you're listening to seven Am. The
Speaker 1: Prime Minister has announced a plan for how Australia approaches AI,
Speaker 1: with a new office to be created overseen by him,
Speaker 1: and new standards expected to be legislated early next year.
Speaker 1: As part of the plan, new data centers can be
Speaker 1: fast tracked, but will have to supply their own power.
Speaker 1: And while the Prime Minister said that artists should be
Speaker 1: able to control the use of their work, there are
Speaker 1: still fears about what will happen when potential investment meets
Speaker 1: copyright law. Today, chair of Digital Rights Watch Lizzie O'Shea
Speaker 1: on whether the government can walk the tightrope of the
Speaker 1: AI boom while protecting and benefiting all Australians. It's Thursday,
Speaker 1: July sixteenth, so Lizzie, let's start with what's just been announced.
Speaker 1: The Prime Minister's Office will now have direct oversight over
Speaker 1: a policy. As part of this new office, the Office
Speaker 1: of Artificial Intelligence.
Speaker 2: Effective today, I am establishing the Office of AI in
Speaker 2: my own Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It
Speaker 2: will work closely with the Minister for Industry and Innovation
Speaker 2: TIMES and the Assistant Minister for Science, Technology and the
Speaker 2: Digital Economy Andrew Chalton to coordinate the design of our
Speaker 2: new Australian standards and to bring together the work that
Speaker 2: ministers right across the government are undertaking.
Speaker 1: What's your kind of initial understanding of what that's going
Speaker 1: to mean.
Speaker 3: It is a little unclear, but it's good in my
Speaker 3: mind to see some centralization around this policy field. And
Speaker 3: that's because when we talk about AI, often Australians are
Speaker 3: thinking about a range of different technologies and products. They
Speaker 3: might be thinking about the productivity tool that they use
Speaker 3: work that's got all these supposed benefits. They might be
Speaker 3: thinking about the chat pot that their kid users and
Speaker 3: then their concerns about safety guide rails around that. They
Speaker 3: might be thinking about how it's used in military tech. Like,
Speaker 3: it's a term that covers a broad range of issues,
Speaker 3: and there's some utility in having the PM step up
Speaker 3: and say.
Speaker 4: We're going to be the people that are centrally responsible
Speaker 4: for it.
Speaker 1: And so part of the announcement involves a faster approval
Speaker 1: process for AO projects, including data centers, which is where
Speaker 1: all the potential investment is. But there are risks that
Speaker 1: come with spitting up that approval process, aren't there?
Speaker 4: Yeah, absolutely so.
Speaker 3: This is the other big component of the announcement today
Speaker 3: talking about fast tracking of construction of the infrastructure that
Speaker 3: supports AI technology.
Speaker 2: Is not our goal to try and legislate for every
Speaker 2: possible eventuality or risk. That only creates the risk of
Speaker 2: Australia missing out on investment altogether. This is about having
Speaker 2: the flexibility to keep with change and get out.
Speaker 4: In front of it.
Speaker 3: Now this is much more controversial for a variety of
Speaker 3: different reasons. Obviously, data centers need to make use of
Speaker 3: natural resources things like power and water, and that will
Speaker 3: impact our access to this as consumers, so there's potential
Speaker 3: cost of living issues and the like. There's prioritization issues
Speaker 3: associated with that. There's planning issues associated with where they
Speaker 3: go and the kind of construction that takes place and
Speaker 3: what those resources are being diverted away from. In the
Speaker 3: United States, it's been extremely controversial how these data centers
Speaker 3: have been built, and often very quickly. I think it's
Speaker 3: just today that New York announced the State of New
Speaker 3: York announced a moratorium for twelve months on the construction
Speaker 3: of data centers while they engage in a process of
Speaker 3: working out how to prioritize, how to make sure community.
Speaker 4: Interests are being heard.
Speaker 3: So the fast tracking announcement that does bring in a
Speaker 3: lot of these issues I am a bit concerned about
Speaker 3: because my concern is that that might be fast tracking
Speaker 3: some kind of production of infrastructure, but it is also
Speaker 3: potentially a problem for accountability. You know, companies like Anthropic
Speaker 3: have been sniffing around in Australia for a long time
Speaker 3: now seeking to build large data centers to train their
Speaker 3: models on. There's reasons why they can't do that right now,
Speaker 3: but the infrastructure. They see Australia as a place where
Speaker 3: the infrastructure could be hosted very effectively.
Speaker 2: We have a continent to ourselves. One of our big advantages.
Speaker 2: We have more than enough room for new data centers
Speaker 2: without them competing with new housing. And we will work
Speaker 2: with every level of government to see common sense prevail.
Speaker 4: And that I.
Speaker 3: Think is a source of concern for a lot of
Speaker 3: people who don't want to replicate some of the problems
Speaker 3: that we've seen with construction of data centers in the
Speaker 3: United States, who maybe want to prioritize getting to net
Speaker 3: zero having a more sustainable economy, who maybe don't necessarily
Speaker 3: think that the productivity benefits or the other benefits associated
Speaker 3: this technology. Are very clear that some of this is
Speaker 3: quite untested, and so we're being asked to make some
Speaker 3: compromises in that respect. One of my concerns is that
Speaker 3: Australians are very mistrust full of AI. In global terms,
Speaker 3: we rate as some of the least optimistic about this technology,
Speaker 3: and I think one of the ways that we can
Speaker 3: potentially get benefits from using this technology is by putting
Speaker 3: trust at the center and demanding trust rather than say, working.
Speaker 4: To obtain it through community consultation the like I think
Speaker 4: will be a problem.
Speaker 3: Fast tracking infrastructure build could increase the kind of mistrust
Speaker 3: that we see for the industry and the technology.
Speaker 1: And one of the other things that I think a
Speaker 1: lot of people are really worried about is what AI
Speaker 1: is going to mean for jobs. I mean, we've just
Speaker 1: had this open letter from hundreds of economists and scientists,
Speaker 1: even AI executives, warning that AI could transform the world's
Speaker 1: economy and potentially put a lot of people out of work.
Speaker 1: So what considerations would you like to see given for
Speaker 1: workers in this AI framework?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think that's critically important.
Speaker 3: I think when people think about AI, they often think
Speaker 3: about the potential for jobs to be lost. That's because
Speaker 3: a lot of the leaders of the industry talk about
Speaker 3: that a lot, right, and I do think it's worth
Speaker 3: interrogating how realistic that is. There's jobs markets that disappear,
Speaker 3: that come and go over periods of time.
Speaker 4: With new technology.
Speaker 3: I don't think it necessarily means less jobs, but it
Speaker 3: may well have an impact on the quality of those jobs,
Speaker 3: and I think that's important to think about, right, how
Speaker 3: can we make sure people still have dignity at work,
Speaker 3: still do work that is meaningfully compensated, that can be
Speaker 3: a livable wage, can be a life of meaning right
Speaker 3: in an age in which a lot of the technology
Speaker 3: is trying to take away some of the human discretion
Speaker 3: and human involvement in decision making in work. So I
Speaker 3: think it's important also as a source of regulation. We've
Speaker 3: seen some interesting laws implemented around the world, but even
Speaker 3: in New South Wales there's been an interesting law recently
Speaker 3: which allows unions to have a say in how systems
Speaker 3: of allocation of work making news of AI can be examined,
Speaker 3: can be questioned, have some consultation and engagement with workers,
Speaker 3: and that kind of engagement I think is really important.
Speaker 3: So there's work that the government could do if it
Speaker 3: wanted to introduce that kind of consultation engagement with the workforce.
Speaker 3: There's models for that, New South Wales being one such model.
Speaker 3: I think more broadly, there's a question around how you
Speaker 3: ensure that the productivity benefits, the gains and the like
Speaker 3: are retained in Australia, and that might be through things
Speaker 3: like taxation of some of these large companies as well.
Speaker 3: That's a much more tricky and contested policy space, but
Speaker 3: I think that's what Australians sort of expect from their government,
Speaker 3: taking on some of these large, very profitable industries.
Speaker 4: And making sure that they're not.
Speaker 3: Just extracting from Australian society, that they're actually returning benefit
Speaker 3: to where they're creating it, which is here.
Speaker 1: Still to come. Will Australian artists be protected under the
Speaker 1: new AI framework, Lizzie. Can we talk about copyright, because
Speaker 1: it's the most controversial and most meaningful part of this
Speaker 1: entire issue. To some reports, Anthropic has already made this offer,
Speaker 1: this twenty one point five billion dollar investment offer contingent
Speaker 1: on changes to copyright. The Prime Minister in his speech
Speaker 1: said that Australian writers and musicians, artists, journalists must retain
Speaker 1: ownership of their work.
Speaker 2: Our laws will spell that out plain as day. An
Speaker 2: artist creative endeavor is their work and their property. No
Speaker 2: companies should use Australian books, music, art or news to
Speaker 2: build or train AI without the artist's control.
Speaker 1: Do you think that will go far enough to ease
Speaker 1: people's concerns around copyright?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think that's a great question.
Speaker 3: So one of the issues that's in dispute, of course
Speaker 3: is copyright protection that was touched on by the Prime Minister.
Speaker 3: One of the barriers to training some of these models,
Speaker 3: like Anthropics model, is protections for creative works that mean
Speaker 3: that how they operate in places like the United States
Speaker 3: wouldn't be considered legal here.
Speaker 4: There's lots of things about the.
Speaker 3: Current copyright regime that creatives don't like, other people don't like.
Speaker 3: But there's also a really serious problem with a very
Speaker 3: large companies, companies like Anthropic taking the hard work of
Speaker 3: people who've done that creative labor that we all benefit from,
Speaker 3: like I think aluf or, a society without artists would
Speaker 3: be a terrible thing, right, and allowing those companies to
Speaker 3: make immense profits and to grow immensely quickly off the
Speaker 3: benefit of that work without paying compensation for it, without
Speaker 3: seeking permission. I mean it should be said like copyright
Speaker 3: is not just also about payment, it's also about seeking
Speaker 3: permission and having that moral right is what it's called
Speaker 3: in legal terms, to say how your work might be
Speaker 3: used right, So it's also about creative freedom. So it
Speaker 3: is a watershed moment. I think how the government responds
Speaker 3: to this immense pressure from a very large company. Australia
Speaker 3: has been consistent in denying that they were going to
Speaker 3: tinkle with copyright laws or raise.
Speaker 4: It as a possible policy alternative.
Speaker 3: But as time goes on, you do wonder whether you've
Speaker 3: got an unstoppable force meeting and a movable object.
Speaker 4: Something's going to have to give.
Speaker 3: And I also remain concerned about some of these deals
Speaker 3: happening behind closed doors. There's a real incentive here to
Speaker 3: disguise what is going on or to limit what the
Speaker 3: public sees. And negotiations occur with these very large companies
Speaker 3: who've built up a lot of capital by doing a
Speaker 3: lot of different things, by being involved in media and
Speaker 3: other kinds of activities, doing lots of lobbying, and so
Speaker 3: then you have a deal that looks like a closed
Speaker 3: door deal done and then presented to the public.
Speaker 4: I can see why that would be again a source
Speaker 4: of mistrust.
Speaker 3: Right, If we want an industry that is trustworthy, that's
Speaker 3: and a government that people have faith in will do
Speaker 3: their bidding, then there's some utility in being open about
Speaker 3: this and having a consultative, engaged process and bringing people
Speaker 3: along the journey rather than presenting them with a done
Speaker 3: deal at the end.
Speaker 1: I wanted to ask you a bit about lobbying. In
Speaker 1: his speech, albert Ez, he referenced civil aviation in the
Speaker 1: twenties and genetics in the nineties.
Speaker 4: Is these kind of.
Speaker 1: Comparable moments of technical revolution that the government had to address?
Speaker 1: One big difference, though, is that, you know, since the
Speaker 1: nineteen twenties, political lobbying has become much more organized, much
Speaker 1: more sophisticated. So how powerful is the tech lobbying camber
Speaker 1: now and should we be worried about how it is
Speaker 1: influencing or might be influencing policy decisions.
Speaker 4: I think that's a legitimate concern.
Speaker 3: So people understand that large centralization of power and corporate
Speaker 3: interests can have a negative impact on democracy. We've seen
Speaker 3: tech globbying being very influential. There's no doubt about it
Speaker 3: that they have an effective lobbying are They also are
Speaker 3: quite unpopular with the public and mistrusted, so they're working
Speaker 3: hard to cultivate a good relationship with lawmakers often, but
Speaker 3: there's a lot of public support for strong regulation reform
Speaker 3: and a lot of I think concern about tech lobbying
Speaker 3: in Canberra that it would be a mistake I think
Speaker 3: on the part of government to ignore and the.
Speaker 1: Alb and easy government. They're pitching this as a world first.
Speaker 1: How does what the Prime Minister is proposing compare to
Speaker 1: how the rest of the world is tackling AI.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I saw that he talked about an office in
Speaker 3: his office as being a world first in terms of
Speaker 3: our regulation. There's lots of different approaches. There's lots of
Speaker 3: ways in which we could pick the best bits and
Speaker 3: try and import them here, and I'm pleased to see
Speaker 3: that there's an acknowledgment that we've got to move towards
Speaker 3: a more conscientious, centralized way of making policy in this space.
Speaker 4: I think it would be.
Speaker 3: A shame to not make use of some of the
Speaker 3: good examples around the world that frame the technology in
Speaker 3: a particular way. That focus on trusts and rights and
Speaker 3: responsibility and local benefit.
Speaker 1: Lizzie, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 4: Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Also in the news, the Liberal Party is considering gender
Speaker 1: quotas to increase the number of women in its parliamentary ranks.
Speaker 1: The idea has resurfaced in a new discussion paper from
Speaker 1: the Liberal Party Commission established a review what went wrong
Speaker 1: after the party's federal election defeat. Liberal leader Angus Taylor
Speaker 1: has opposed quotas in the past, and Nicki Winmar has
Speaker 1: been removed from the AFL Hall of Fame after being
Speaker 1: found guilty of three assault charges involving violence against a woman.
Speaker 1: The chair of the AFL Commission says it acknowledges Windmar's
Speaker 1: significant contribution to the game and his place in history,
Speaker 1: but the violence against women has no place in the community,
Speaker 1: in the game, or in the values the Australian Football
Speaker 1: Hall of Fame seeks to uphold. I'm Ruby Jones. This
Speaker 1: is seven am. Thanks for listening.