The prime minister’s announcement focuses on “AI safety”, “AI security” and “frontier” AI models and companies. But Australians may remain unprotected from known AI harms that – though less spectacular – are already widespread and serious.
Nearly half of the recommendations are about increasing Australia’s preparedness for AI-related cyber incidents.
The recommendations make sense. The review is right to emphasise the role of building capacity, relationships, and cooperation. Effective and responsive AI regulation must go beyond the government simply issuing and enforcing rigid rules.
Despite these strengths, the government seems to be taking a narrow view of what “AI safety” means.
AI and algorithmic systems are increasingly integrated into important services such as healthcare, insurance, housing, finance, employment, education and social security.
We’ve seen Robodebt harm hundreds of thousands of Australians. Sexist AI-enabled job recruitment tools, AI-enabled stadium security systems that let a gun into the Melbourne Cricket Ground, racist policing algorithms, and AI meal-planners that recommend poisonous recipes are just a few among thousands of examples of everyday AI harms and risks.
As the Medicare incident showed, risks also emerge from interactions between software systems, organisations and real world contexts. It doesn’t make sense to just focus on powerful AI models out of context.
Seems pretty clear to me. Stuff like robodebt killed people are severely injured who knows how many. Nothing about systems like that, or say facial rec injuring privacy and falsy accusing people is being covered.
Instead it’s about the stupid nerd rapture critihype stuff.
Impronoucabl@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I think you’re mixing up automated decision making with AI.
Everything these days is branded as ‘AI’ as a marketing gimmick, even if there’s no real intelligence behind it.
So if you want human oversight over everything, everywhere, all the time, then no, the latest guidelines don’t help in that regard.
But to dismiss all addressed concerns as
Is to be willfully ignorant, and not constructive.
naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
It’s not me, you’re arguing with someone with a PhD in the area lol. The conversation only accepts articles from faculty or active PhD students.
You’re also strawmanning the author’s position, but if you’re one of the P(doom) dorks you should be all about steelmanning.
Impronoucabl@lemmy.world 1 day ago
This is the internet,I don’t care who wrote it, I only judge arguments by their soundness.
And even then, my issue isn’t with their arguments, which I haven’t addressed (I don’t know why you think I strawman-ed them), it’s that they don’t have one.
At best, they’re saying that the latest AI guidelines don’t cover risks the government previously identified and already took action on, pending review.
How does that contribute to the narrative that the new guidelines are incorrectly focused?
It smells of the Chewbacca’s defense, unless you can enlighten me with a better reading.