Artificial intelligence has the capacity to affect and to influence human behaviour on a scale which we have never before experienced. Because every law in one way or another seeks to regulate human behaviour, an instrument with that capacity will likely touch most of our laws.<\/p>\n
Such an instrument comes with significant risk, given \u201cthe likely ubiquity of AI and its forthcoming role as the dominant purchasing and transactional agent for us all, together with its capacity to become the primary source of our information and news\u201d. Scoping out the risks, identifying who bears responsibility for them, the unique properties of AI and determining whether we should take a preventive or remedial approach to damages \u2014 rather than vaguer questions like whether to take a \u201clight touch\u201d approach \u2014 amounts to \u201cthe largest and most complex law reform exercise that currently confronts Australia\u201d.<\/p>\n
Bromberg is hardly a legal Luddite. \u201cAI is and will remain an agent of change that will transform the legal profession. And so it should \u2026 It may be that AI will result in fewer lawyers. We ought to be enthused by those features of AI that will enhance the services we provide. We are, however, somewhat threatened by the notion that AI will replace us \u2026 I am personally optimistic that AI can and will make very substantial contributions to the productivity of legal professionals.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\t\tRelated Article Block Placeholder<\/p>\n
\t\t\tArticle ID: 1217502\n\t<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t But he distinguishes between the intelligence that AI displays and the wisdom that complex legal cases demand. \u201cWisdom is a skill of a greater degree of order than mere intelligence. It is far harder to be wise than it is to be smart. And wisdom is a skill developed and exercised not merely by reference to data but by reference to innately human experiences that AI does not share.\u201d<\/p>\n \tIndependent. Irreverent. In your inbox<\/p>\n \n Get the headlines they don\u2019t want you to read. Sign up to Crikey\u2019s free newsletters for fearless reporting, sharp analysis, and a touch of chaos <\/p>\n By continuing, you agree to our\u00a0Terms & Conditions<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Privacy Policy<\/a>.<\/p>\n Bromberg\u2019s distinction is an apt one for the quality of debate around AI regulation, which at the moment is dominated by economic perspectives: the AI industry itself \u2014 spruiking wildly inflated claims of productivity benefits<\/a> to be achieved by handing them a lot of public money and not regulating them, trade unions trying to hobble AI so no worker ever loses their job, and spruikers like the Productivity Commission, who lean toward minimal regulation regardless of the impacts on creators whose hard work has formed the basis of the profits of AI companies.<\/p>\n That economic focus seems akin to the regulators of 2008 focusing only on the potential advertising revenue impacts of social media \u2014 rather than the potential for disinformation, online bullying, the risks posed by social media usage to mental health or its ability to foster political division. The mental health risks of AI are already becoming apparent \u2014 what happens when articles like these<\/a> go from the stuff that makes you slap your forehead at how dumb people are, to describing a wide-scale mental health issue, as we\u2019ve already seen with the impact of social media on young people<\/a>? AI is also developing rapidly at the same time as we are still trying to play catch-up in other key areas where politicians have failed to implement previous law reform challenges, like privacy<\/a>, which will be dramatically affected by AI.<\/p>\n As with social media in 2008, the benefits and damage from AI can only be guessed at. We know from the history of new media that it\u2019s difficult to predict how it will shape society \u2014 and also that people will make huge claims about both the positives and negatives of the new medium for self-interested or ideological reasons. AI, as a new kind of technology rather than merely a new medium, is that challenge on steroids.<\/p>\n But that makes Bromberg\u2019s essential point \u2014 that we should be undertaking a basic stocktake of AI\u2019s impacts and their legal implications \u2014 all the more powerful. If we wait, we might have a clearer idea of what we need to regulate, but we\u2019ll also \u2014 as we\u2019re doing with social media \u2014 be \u201cchasing a tail that can never be caught\u201d.<\/p>\n \tWhat will be the main challenges of regulating AI?<\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/1755275127_912_AdobeStock_258882906-copy.jpg\")
\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n