Australia at a crossroads in AI

Australia is facing a choice between creating its own AI rules or following the existing ones. (Source: The Interpreter)

The article said that AI is being promoted as a new breakthrough in governance and national strategy. However, if Australia does not set its own rules for this technology, the land of kangaroos will become a passive recipient, depending on systems designed and controlled by other countries.

Faced with a difficult problem

AI is not a neutral technology. The way it works reflects the mindset, priorities, and values of those who create it, including governments and foreign corporations.

Importing AI systems built to foreign standards also means importing rules around privacy, autonomy and control. To ensure technological sovereignty , Australia needs to develop its own AI development guidelines and governance framework, clearly designed to reflect national values and interests.

But the issue is not whether to use AI, but rather how Australia will operate the technology. If standards are drawn up overseas, every AI system operating in the country will be bound by an “invisible string” – a form of strategic dependency in the digital age.

Australia is not America, nor is it China. It cannot lead in hardware manufacturing, nor can it spend large sums on drone networks, satellites or algorithmic warfare systems.

But Australia still has a choice: Invest in the knowledge to develop AI ethics, governance and interoperability standards, or accept the standards set by the US or China. “Relevance” in this case is really just dependency.

In the defense sector, planners traditionally measure capabilities by the number of equipment or physical strength. However, AI has changed that concept, and power is now measured by control over the decision-making process.

Australia still sees AI as a commodity and a capability-building tool. If AI standards are still set by foreign countries, any AI system Canberra deploys will be pulled by the invisible strings of dependency.

Australia therefore needs to establish standards and regulations on interoperability in defence, transparency frameworks when applied in the public sector, and ethical barriers to prevent AI from being misused to manipulate citizens or undermine democracy.

If it can do that and get other countries to follow suit, Australia could become a standard-setter, thereby strengthening its soft power, similar to how Geneva is seen as the center of humanitarian law, or Brussels is a symbol of global privacy governance.

What's next for Australia?

The question is, will Australia write the rules of the game, or will it follow the rules set by other countries?

Analysts say Australia is more likely to take the easy route, setting up committees, writing reports, and then buying what the US is using. This approach may be disguised as “practicality,” but it is actually a lack of courage in strategic planning.

AI standards are being shaped right now in Washington, Brussels and Beijing. If Australia doesn’t join in with a clear stance, it will be invisible from the start.

Australia has two very clear choices: have a say in shaping the rules, or remain a laggard, subject to the dictates of others. Once these standards are established, they can last for decades, and future generations of Australians will be forced to live within a framework they did not choose.

So this is not just a story about “getting ahead of technology” or “seizing the opportunity”. It is a question of sovereignty and status. Australia can continue to be dependent as it has been in the past, or it can define its own role in the AI era.

"AI is not a passing trend, but a strategic hinge of the future. Middle-sized countries like Australia have very few opportunities to make their name in the rules of the new era," the article said.

Source: https://baoquocte.vn/australia-dung-giua-nga-ba-duong-trong-linh-vuc-ai-330521.html