Interim response
The Australian AI Act of Non-Commitment
In 2020, like in years before (2018 and 2019), Russia hosted its “house” during the World Economic Forum in Davos. The 2021 WEF annual meeting was cancelled due to the pandemic. In 2022, the same building was named “Davos Russia War Crimes House”, reflecting the shift in our perception of what deserves our attention.
Interim house
In 2024, the former Russia House became home to over two hundred experts in Artificial intelligence, including Yann LeCun (Meta), Jonas Andrulis (Aleph Alpha), Andrew Ng (Stanford) and Amy Webb (Future Today Institute). Topics: AI International Regulation, AI Governance, and AI for every imaginable industry.
This move makes it very clear what’s happening: AI is on everyone’s minds. I know you know it, but I am trying to make a point here, so excuse the redundant language.
Out of over two hundred speakers, I spotted only one representative of Australia: Prof. Brian Schmidt, the Nobel Prize laureate in Physics and the Vice Chancellor of Australian National University. Unfortunately, and sadly, we were only a blip on the radar (if your question is why I am complaining, instead of being there. I would have loved to attend, but the last time I managed to get to WEF in Davos was in 2020).
Every country in the world is now considering what the public sector’s role should be in the wake of artificial intelligence. Questions abound: Is new legislation required, should local AI sovereignty be boosted, and how can small and medium enterprises be ensured not to be left behind in the AI revolution? While I was in Germany last week, we were involved in daily discussions about the EU AI Act. Unsurprisingly, many similar questions apply to Australia—where I am based.
Interim response
While the AI House in Davos was in full swing this week, the Australian Federal Government released “Safe and Responsible AI in Australia Consultation: Australian Government’s interim response”. It was received with a collegial sigh of “finally”.
I thought a lot (too much, to be frank) about the word “interim” in the title. What was it supposed to mean? When a company announces an interim CEO, it means they haven’t managed to introduce proper succession planning, and now they ensure the company doesn’t fall apart. If someone called their spouse “an interim spouse”, this would be a clear signal they don’t care and cannot wait to have another one (and also, it would be the last time they used that term).
“Interim” is a synonym for “we just couldn’t come up with anything better, but we will, as soon as we can”.
An “interim response”?
Unlike in the case of an interim CEO or even an interim spouse, no one in Australian politics says: “This is a response good enough for now, while we’re identifying the right response”.
So, here’s a serious question for the Australian Federal Government: how long will the “interim” period last?
What’s in Australia’s “interim” response?
I was involved in the consultations that informed the document, so I had some idea of what to expect. But still, I was utterly stunned.
While reading the document, I aimed to identify precisely what the Australian Government commits to achieving. I wanted to find out what we can keep it accountable for and where we could help.
How to read the document? You can review the entire thing, but the first sections are purely informative: they summarise the work done and outline the principles driving the response. These sections are done well. I might be a bit biased against the “risk-based approach” driving the response, but that’s fine: this is not my strategy, and perhaps a risk-based, rather than an opportunity-based approach, has a higher likelihood of succeeding in politics
The most important part of the document is the last few pages. This is where the government commits to actions. And this is where I spent the most time.
All I could find was verbal gymnastics: trying to state a lot without committing to anything meaningful. Every single action that the response lists is simply a “consideration”, a “consultation”, a “request”, “commencement” or a “continuation”. There is no commitment to achieving anything. See for yourself. Below are nine images, including every single action the response commits to. I highlighted some parts. Can you see why I am concerned? Please let me know in the comments if you think I am exaggerating!
I hope I am badly misunderstanding something here. But I am also worried that I understand this situation very well: the team behind the document has done all they could, but the political leadership and commitment (something beyond them) is simply lacking.
It would have been fantastic if the document had included intended timelines for each action. This itself would make the document dramatically more impressive. There’s also quite a lot of investment (still not enough, though) in AI by the federal government, and the document is suspiciously quiet about it. Why not include this information? Finally, expressing a bold vision of the future of AI in Australia would make this document much more convincing. These are not hard to add—even after the interim response has been released.
My team and I have created multiple digital strategies and contributed to countless others on all levels of government. Some of them won international awards. Even if political constraints are massive, developing strategies that rally people behind them is possible. We all get that politicians are often overly cautious.
Earlier today, in a LinkedIn discussion, I was reminded that this is perhaps the Australian way of doing politics: small steps so as not to spook anyone. Maybe I just don’t get how politics should be done to get things done. But if this is the case, I’d love a politician to comfort us by confirming that Australia’s goals in AI are much bolder than what the response document seems to indicate.