AI now ranked among Australia’s most ethically challenging technologies

Written by: Daniel Popovski, AI and tech policy and advocacy lead 

The 10th edition of the Governance Institute of Australia Ethics Index has revealed that the ethical dilemmas associated with the use of AI now rivals embryo experimentation and gene therapy with Australians becoming increasingly uncomfortable. 

The Index shows a significant deterioration in the perceptions of how AI is being used with respondents to the Ipsos survey of over 1000 Australians finding that we are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the use of personal data by companies over the past decade.  

This is being led by Australians deteriorating trust and confidence in the use of AI by social media companies and across the workplace where it is now broadly perceived as unethical. 

Australians are concerned with AI replacing human judgment including the use of personal data by companies without clearly defined or informed consent and where its use is perceived to be poorly governed and regulated to inform decision making. 

This is impacting how Australians are interacting with the technology at home and in the workplace. 

Australians are becoming increasingly concerned with the replacement of workers with AI-driven chat bots and are uneasy with AI being used to replace humans in decision making particularly for everyday financial services such as loan applications or insurance claims. 

Our anxieties over the use of AI are not only isolated to the workplace or across high-risk settings such as where medical diagnostic tools or self-driving cars are concerned, but traverse into our personal lives including how we engage and interact with others online. 

The use of personal data by companies through the collection of data from social media companies was a highlighted concern in this year’s survey. 

TikTok remains the most unethical platform trailed closely by Facebook and X (formerly Twitter). 

The survey revealed that directors of foreign companies are perceived as some of the most unethical occupations trailing politicians and real estate agents. 

The unauthorised use of personal data was not the only contributing factor.  

One of the key issues emerging from the survey results was the use of AI-generated content such as news, images or videos without AI-generated disclosure.  

In a world first, China has now mandated that AI-generated content be labelled wherever it appears online, including on AI generated text, images, audio, video, virtual scenes, or other information.  

However, Australia is yet to contemplate such a law with recent indications from government and the Productivity Commission, that existing laws may be broadly sufficient to regulate the use of AI.  

The volume of online information and opinions have made Australians more unsure about what is genuine and truly ethical. 

Gen Z respondents found that they struggle to navigate authenticity and find it challenging to navigate misinformation. 

They are also less likely to state their views and interact online in a genuine way, out of fear of judgement.  

Fear of expression may have serious consequences to the democratic institutions that are essential to the way we decide what is ethical. 

Gen Z also fear job displacement from AI whilst on the opposite end of the generational spectrum baby boomers are becoming increasingly apprehensive fearing they can no longer keep up with the technological change occurring in workplaces.  

Ethical leadership requires transparency, accountability, and values beyond what may be required through compliance. 

The gap between ethical expectations and reality is now at a record high and it is up to government and the professional business community to work together to close this gap. 

We need to do more to incentivise workplaces to create and communicate their AI governance frameworks including how AI is used in the workplace, but critically how AI generated information informs decision-making.  

The use of AI is more than just efficiency building its about increasing employment satisfaction by shifting the focus from repetitive tasks and activities to more strategic and meaningful work. 

Finding the true value-add of AI technology in workplace settings is something Australian workplaces need to get better at, something we significant trail our counterparts in the region. 

We can’t let the risk of poorly communicated AI policies, or misuse of data by the few affect the way in which AI is developed and deployed. 

There are significant unrealised benefits of AI that can deliver on socio-economic and environmental challenges by their sheer force of data analysis that can deliver clever solutions to solve our grand challenges and wicked problems. 

We need to leverage AI in more meaningful and impactful ways and not limit ourselves to the fear of worker displacement. 

Government, industries and professional associations need to work now to identify where and how workers may be displaced and start to lead on tangible plans to upskill, reskill the workforce in ways that delivers tangible benefits for Australians. 

The Ethics Index survey suggests we have a long way to go before Australians feel comfortable and confident with AI use and uptake in the workplace and in their social interactions online.  

Despite perceptions otherwise, AI is not going entirely ‘unregulated’ in Australia. The use of AI in the workplace relates to several discreet laws and standards or ‘soft laws’ such as the Voluntary AI Standard that encourage the safe and responsible use of AI. 

Emerging gaps in how we regulate AI are most apparent for large multi-national firms where citizens feel less empowered or confident that Government can influence how they are regulated and governed in a meaningful way. 

This is where international consensus is critical.  

We are observing the proliferation of international agreements on the safe and ethical use of AI with recent declarations being made by the UN, UNESCO and BRICS. 

Australia is a signatory to the Bletchley AI Safety agreement, recognising its role in the safe and ethical development and deployment of AI.  

The Australian Government is currently contemplating whether there are gaps in how AI is regulated and deployed and whether a standalone regulation such as the EU AI Act is required. 

It is less apparent that a standalone Act is necessary to restore trust and confidence in the use and deployment of AI. However, existing laws and regulations may need to be strengthened. 

Australians view AI companies training models on publicly available content without permission from creators as very unethical. 

Yet the Productivity Commission and Tech Council’s Chair Scott Farquar suggested exemptions to Copyright laws, that may compromise the integrity and protection of creative works. 

Government’s challenge will be to determine how it can attract foreign direct investment in AI whilst protecting Australian privacy, consumer rights and copyright protections. 

The Productivity Commission’s final report to government on harnessing data and technology is expected in December this year. 

Governance Institute has been advocating for a National AI Strategy that considers the future of the workforce, how effectively the technology is used and deployed by organisations and support the protection of personal data of Australians and copyright works of Australian creative industries.