Technology companies Amazon, Google and Meta have been criticized in a Senate Select Committee investigation for being particularly vague about how they used Australian data to train their powerful artificial intelligence products. .
Labor senator Tony Sheldon, chair of the inquiry, was frustrated that multinational companies were refusing to answer direct questions about Australians’ personal information and their use of it.
“Watching Amazon, Meta, and Google dodge questions in the hearings was like sitting through a cheap magic trick, with lots of hand waving and puffs of smoke. In the end, we had nothing to show,” Sheldon said in a statement. After releasing the final report of the investigation on Tuesday.
He called technology companies “pirates” who are “leaving Australians empty-handed and plundering our culture, data and creativity for their own profit”.
The report states that some general-purpose AI models, such as OpenAI’s GPT, Meta’s Llama, and Google’s Gemini, will automatically be placed in the “high risk” category by default, with mandatory transparency and accountability requirements. should be imposed.
Several important themes emerged during the study and its report.
Requires standalone AI methods
Mr Sheldon said Australia needed “new standalone AI laws” to “curb big tech” and existing laws would need to be amended where necessary.
“They want to set their own rules, but Australians need laws that protect their rights, not Silicon Valley’s interests,” he said.
He said Amazon declined to disclose how it used data recorded from Alexa devices, Kindles and Audible to train its AI during the investigation.
Google also declined to answer questions about what user data from its services and products it used to train its AI products, he said.
Meta admitted it had been collecting information from Australian Facebook and Instagram users since 2007 in preparation for future AI models. But the company couldn’t explain how users could consent to their data being used for something that didn’t exist in 2007.
Sheldon said Meta dodged questions about how it used data from its WhatsApp and Messenger products.
AI is ‘high risk’ for creative workers
The report found that creative workers are most at risk of having their lives severely impacted by AI.
It recommended introducing payment mechanisms to reward creatives when AI-generated works are based on original material.
Developers of AI models need to be transparent about the use of copyrighted material in their datasets, the report says. All declared works must be licensed and paid for.
sign up for breaking news australia
Get the most important news breaking news
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may include information about charities, online advertising, and content sponsored by external parties. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and are subject to the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.
After newsletter promotion
The report’s 13 recommendations include a call for the introduction of standalone AI legislation to cover AI models deemed “high risk”.
AI that impacts people’s rights in the workplace should be designated as high risk, meaning consultation, cooperation and representation before deployment.
Music rights organization Apra Amcos said the report recognized the negative impact of AI, particularly on workers in the creative sector. It said the report’s recommendations suggested “clear steps” to reduce the risks.
The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance said the report’s call for introducing legislation to enact AI legislation was “clear and unambiguous”.
Don’t smother your AI with red tape
The committee’s coalition members, Senator Linda Reynolds and James McGrath, said AI posed a greater threat to Australia’s cybersecurity, national security and democratic institutions than the creative economy. Ta.
They said mechanisms needed to be put in place “without compromising the potential opportunities that AI presents in terms of job creation and productivity improvement.”
They did not accept the report’s conclusion that all use of AI by “people at work” should be automatically classified as “high risk.”
Additional comments from the Green Party argued that the final report was not sufficient.
“[The report]does not recommend a comprehensive strategy that would bring Australia’s AI regulations in line with those in the UK, Europe, California and other jurisdictions,” the party said.
The Guardian has contacted Amazon, Google and Meta for comment.
