Regulation of (Generative) AI Requires Continuous Oversight (AustLII Submission on the ‘Safe and Responsible AI in Australia’ Discussion Paper)

Abstract

Australia’s Department of Industry, Science and Resources invited interested parties to make submissions on a Discussion Paper (DP) Safe and Responsible AI in Australia. This submission by researchers from the Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII) addresses the most important general issues identified in the Discussion Paper and suggests the best strategies to address them.

In the paper, we make submission on he following:
1 Why the rate of take-up of automated decision-making (ADM) systems in Australia, needs to be determined.
2 Whether regulation should be be aimed at ‘AI generally’, or something else.
3 Why the definition of ‘AI’ should refer to ‘without explicit programming', and why ‘hallucinations should be dropped.
4 An alternative set of 10 principles to be used to guide Australian regulation.
5 The need for a continuous source of expert advice which will regularly report to existing regulatory bodies, to government and to the public.
6 How an ‘Australian Advisory Board on Regulation of AI’ (the AI Board) could be structured.
7 Why Australia should aim to provide inputs to influence international developments where possible, and where this is most important.
8 Why a risk-based approach to regulation of AI should be adopted,
9 Why only the most dangerous applications should be brought within it in the first instance.
10 What could be included in the Commonwealth’s initial ‘AI Framework Act’.

Keywords: Australia, AustLII, AI, Artificial Intelligence