AI Regulation: The Handbrake on Innovation is Back

Friday - August 18 2023, 01:20 UTC - 1 year ago

Tech companies that were previously against regulation now embrace government regulation for AI as a handbrake on innovation. The need for increased regulation has been highlighted by tragic events and the potential risks associated with AI. This is because existing laws already apply to AI, although they are not being enforced consistently. In response, the Human Rights Law Centre and RMIT AI legal fellow James Williams have drafted principles for ethical AI regulation for the governmen's AI Red Tape Review.

Regulation was once a dirty word in tech companies around the world. They argued that if people wanted better smartphones and flying cars, we had to look past dusty old laws dreamed up in the pre-internet era.But something profound is afoot. First a whisper, and now a roar: the law is back.

Ed Husic, Australia's federal minister responsible for tech policy, is leading a once-in-a-generation review of Australian law, asking Australians how our law should change for the AI era. He recently told the ABC, "I think the era of self-regulation is over." .

Sure, there were caveats. Husic made clear that regulation for AI should focus on "high-risk elements" and "getting the balance right". But the rhetorical shift was unmistakable: if we had allowed the creation of some kind of digital wild west, it must end.

Tech companies demand regulation—but why? .

One moment might sum up the dawn of this new era. On May 16, Sam Altman—chief executive of OpenAI, the company responsible for ChatGPT—declared in the US Congress, "regulation of AI is essential".

On its face, this seems like a stunning transformation. Less than a decade ago, Facebook's motto was "move fast and break things". When its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, uttered those words he spoke for a generation of Silicon Valley tech bros who saw the law as a handbrake on innovation.

Reform is urgent, and so we need to seize this moment. But first we should ask why the tech world has suddenly become enamored with regulation.

One explanation is tech leaders can see that, without more effective regulation, the threats associated with AI could overshadow its positive potential.

We have recently had tragic reminders of the value of regulation. Think of OceanGate, the company behind the Titanic-seeking submersible that disintegrated earlier this year, killing everyone on board. OceanGate avoided safety certification because "bringing an outside entity up to speed on every innovation before it is put into real-world testing is anathema to rapid innovation".

Maybe there has been a genuine change of heart: tech companies certainly know their products can harm as well as help. But something else is also at play. When tech companies call for governments to make laws for AI, there is an unstated premise: currently, there are no laws that apply to AI.

But this is plain wrong.

Existing laws already apply to AI .

Our current laws make clear that no matter what form of technology is used, you cannot engage in deceptive or negligent behavior.

Say you advise people on choosing the best health insurance policy, for example. It doesn't matter whether you base your advice on an abacus or the most sophisticated form of AI, it's equally unlawful to take secret commissions or provide negligent advice.

A significant part of the problem in the AI era is not the content of our law, but the fact it is not consistently enforced when it comes to the development and use of AI. This means regulators, courts, lawyers and the community sector need to up their game to ensure human rights and consumer protections are being enforced effectively for AI.

This will be a big job. In our submission to the governmen's AI Red Tape Review, the Human Rights Law Centre and RMIT AI legal fellow James Williams made a number of principles for ethical AI regulation .