Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese appears to be listening to artificial intelligence (AI) firms\u2019 warnings to the world about the dangers of the technology they are developing. <\/p>\n
Over the weekend, he said global rules were needed<\/a> to regulate the development of AI \u201cto make sure that humans remain in control\u201d. <\/p>\n This comes after Dario Amodei, the boss of AI firm Anthropic, called for AI development to slow down<\/a> so governments and firms have more time to address the \u201cserious\u201d risks associated with the technology. Other leading AI figures, such as Sam Altman, the head of OpenAI, agree with him<\/a>. <\/p>\n But how exactly could AI be better regulated? And who exactly would enforce it? <\/p>\n What\u2019s prompting this?<\/p>\n There are growing concerns about the ability of AI to escape human control. This comes after a series of high-profile AI cybersecurity incidents. <\/p>\n For example, just last week Google announced its Gemini AI model<\/a> autonomously hacked three websites during a test of its cybersecurity capabilities in May. <\/p>\n Similar incidents involving Anthropic\u2019s<\/a> and OpenAI\u2019s<\/a> AI models have also occurred recently.<\/p>\n One way to interpret these cybersecurity incidents is as hyperbolic marketing. In a world of rapid media cycles, they help maintain the excitement on AI capabilities. They are also far more interesting than incremental tech development. <\/p>\n But they also raise the question of whether AI firms need greater oversight and regulation. <\/p>\n What are countries currently doing?<\/p>\n Last week, the Australian government released a consultation paper<\/a> on proposed national \u201cAI standards\u201d. <\/p>\n The focus is on realising opportunities and minimising potential harms around data centres and AI training infrastructure. But there is also a proposal that AI companies be legally required to report rogue incidents, such as the hacking of another company, to Australian authorities. <\/p>\n The European Union\u2019s AI Act<\/a> is perhaps the most progressive of all instruments to regulate AI. It enforces a risk-tiered framework, classifying AI from unacceptable to minimal risk. <\/p>\n Each tier comes with legal explanations and practical examples to help stakeholders understand and comply with the prohibitions. <\/p>\n The enforcement of the AI Act is shared between the member states, the European Data Protection Supervisor, and by the European Commission\u2019s AI Office. The AI Office can request<\/a> technical documentation, evaluate models, require corrective measures and importantly issue fines for noncompliance. <\/p>\n In the United States, there is a political deadlock when it comes to AI regulation. President Donald Trump is opposed to formal regulation<\/a>. <\/p>\n Other politicians, such as Senator Bernie Sanders, are calling on the US<\/a> to work with China on AI regulation. <\/p>\n An international approach is needed<\/p>\n AI is a global technology and piecemeal laws in individual countries which target specific issues such as deepfakes, algorithmic bias or hacking aren\u2019t enough to keep it under control. <\/p>\n An international approach \u2013 as Anthony Albanese is calling for \u2013 is clearly needed. <\/p>\n It\u2019s important to acknowledge at the outset that any international approach will be imperfect. This is especially true as the technology continues to evolve. But an imperfect instrument is better than merely trusting AI firms to do the right thing. <\/p>\n This approach could take inspiration from how the global aviation industry is regulated. For example, it has national regulators as well as an international governing body<\/a> known as the International Civil Aviation Organisation. This organisation sets safety standards, undertakes compliance audits and leads studies and analysis of incidents. <\/p>\n An international approach to AI regulation could also take inspiration from the International Atomic Energy Agency<\/a>. This body plays a central role in setting global standards for nuclear safety and security and promotes international cooperation and regulation. <\/p>\n These are some of the best models of international collaboration when it comes to governing new and emerging technology. If applied to AI, they could result in a stronger safety framework, mandatory third-party audits of AI models, and greater transparency of the technology. <\/p>\n Australia can play a key role<\/p>\n Australia might be a middle power with limited influence over big tech firms. <\/p>\n But it can still help to build a global consensus on the need for greater AI regulation. Its world-leading \u2013 albeit imperfect \u2013 push to curb young people\u2019s access to social media demonstrates this. Many other countries are now making similar moves to address some of the harms caused by social media platforms. <\/p>\n Developing strong international AI regulations is likely to be slow \u2013 especially given the US is struggling with its own stance. In the absence of such regulations, it\u2019s important individual jurisdictions around the world hold AI firms more accountable for any harms that arise from the technology they\u2019re developing.<\/p>\n The Australian government includes this idea in its AI ethics principles<\/a>:<\/p>\n People responsible for the different phases of the AI system lifecycle should be identifiable and accountable for the outcomes of the AI systems, and human oversight of AI systems should be enabled.<\/p>\n But other jurisdictions have gone further. <\/p>\n