AI regulation over kneejerk union lobbying will damage economy
With the companies that proudly explain, they dismissed workers to use artificial intelligence. Now he’s hiring them againet al discovery How terrible how terrible workers can actually be workers, most of the ruthless Hype, who accompanied technology in the last two years, seem a little early.
It is not as bad as the autonomous vehicles in which no one has been told to us for the last twenty years, without approaching a truly -guided car (one Texas Company Recently Put human drivers in the steering wheel of too much driverless trucks).
As in artificial intelligence, a revolution was promised by autonomous tools lawyers, and life and trade fundamentally changed because they did not need people. So far, 2025 is very similar to 2005, only with more electric vehicles.
Although the autonomous vehicles dismissed taxi drivers and truck drivers, their expressions of concern for their destiny were rarely foaming on the foam surface to read a book while going to work or riding on radishes without caution.
However, this is seen as a threat to various industries as much as production and a long-term industry-and legal services, sales and education, such as human-human jobs and content creation services (such as my job). Suddenly the potential effects on employment are the front and center.
Trade unions representing 13% of the workers but applying a major impact within the Labor Party demand that AI be regulated, including protection for workers who are at risk of losing jobs. Some union leaders “Digital only transition“.
This is a shameless theft of an idea caused by the debate on transition from fossil fuels to renewable energies, which deals with how energy production often tends to be in coal fields-which will be influenced by the addition of coaling due to the addition of coal.
Considering the enthusiasm of the Federal and State Labor Party on coal exports, the passage was not particularly a major problem for coal mining. Coal mining labor force is twice as larger than 20 years ago and shows that concerns about future work losses can often be too much out of the beam.
It is difficult to believe in similar concerns about the dismissal of the masses of AI, including the dreams of releasing people to spend all day’s telephones that prohibit the Silicon Valley billionaires completely and to spend all day’s phones. It really can do this, but governments seem to be willing to continue for decades.
However, there is no situation for “digital only transition”.
Yes, if used to educate jobs, workers should be charged – this is a simple industrial relationship problem that can be solved through workplace bargaining processes, not regulation. Yes, the wide power requirements of AI should only be met with renewable power and water needs should be sustainable. These are energy and water market problems; In Australia, there is already an existing energy capacity mechanism and beyond individual company commitments such as AWS, companies must pay market rates for the water they use to return the renewed water.
Most importantly, AI’s employment effects will emerge during the shortage of growing workers, whether they are large or – more likely – part and limited. Despite the best efforts of job destruction and destruction by the Reserve Bank, we have a full employment or close business market. We have significant skill problems among important industries (less suitable industries for AI, such as construction and health services). The future economy will need more workers in critical industries such as child care and elderly and disability care.
Anything that prevents the capacity to carry the workers of the economy to higher valuable roles is a potential obstacle to economic growth. This includes regulation arrangement for regulation to protect workers from AI, as requested by trade unions.
Industry Minister Tim Ayres At least it gets Artificial intelligence is not likely to lead to major losses of work warned by both advocates and critics, but it is worried about a “AI strategy örçok aiming at a regulatory balance between promoting technology and protecting people from ‘traps’.
Yes, this government is consistent with the intention of continuous exhibiting that voters can operate in their interests, not the interests of the economic and political system. However, by order of trade unions, AI’s preventive and knee regulation will harm the economy. While reflecting the interests of its members, the wider national interests of the unions are more likely to reflect more than individual companies trying to influence politics in their narrow interests. However, when it comes to artificial intelligence, it seems more concern about the national interests of trade unions on their own interests.
