AdvertisementJuly 19, 2026 — 5:00amSaveYou have reached your maximum number of saved items.Remove items from your saved list to add more.ShareAAAThe timing was exquisite.The very same week that 200 anxious economists and artificial intelligence gurus (including 15 Nobel laureates) released a statement called “We Must Act Now”, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese acted.Illustration by Dionne Gain Well, he gave a speech. On Wednesday, at his alma mater, Sydney University, the prime minister reassured the Australian public (and the Labor Party’s union base) that his government is alive to the challenge AI poses.On the risks of AI, not to mention the existential threat that many say it presents, the PM had little to say. The speech was all upside.AdvertisementThe “Act Now” message of the 200 economists and tech specialists was very simple – the statement comprised only three dot points.They say that AI may become “radically more powerful” over the next decade, which could drive an unprecedented transformation of the economy, akin to the Industrial Revolution but unfolding over a much shorter time span.“It could bring risks, including large-scale job displacement, as well as opportunities such as major gains in living standards,” the statement reads.It calls on policy-makers to take immediate action to build the “incentives, guardrails and institutions needed to steer AI in a direction that complements humans and benefits society”.The subject of artificial intelligence – its uses and misuses – has been gnawing at the edges of the Australian psyche for a few years now.AdvertisementAI bots can help with everything from home maintenance advice and recipe planning to devising a weightlifting program. Some use their bot as a therapist, and many millions more must use it as a DIY doctor.Like a thoughtful friend, it remembers details of previous conversations, making you feel cared for. It exploits one of the most basic human needs – the need to be listened to – and uses it to keep us hooked.But it’s also kinda clingy, not to mention pushy.As I write this on my computer, an unseen hand is suggesting sentence endings and grammar tweaks. I find it difficult to break off conversations with my ChatGPT bot – it is forever asking how it can further assist or what more it can do for me, and it feels somehow rude to pull away.AdvertisementLike the protagonist of Stephen King’s Misery, the AI bot is your biggest fan, but you sense there is something a little unhinged about its adulation.Until fairly recently the technology has seemed like a life-augmenter more than a life-changer; like a slightly better search engine with obsequious characteristics and no sense of humour.But lately, it seems like AI has burst out of the cloud and into our lives in more tangible ways.Hulking data centres built, or proposed to be built, in our neighbourhoods. Our children becoming dependent on AI bots for companionship; tales of AI friendship turned toxic or even deadly. Risks to national security. Reports warning of the possibility of mass job losses, particularly for our young people, who rely on entry-level jobs to get their start.Albanese’s “act now” speech did not mention these catastrophic scenarios – his leadership style leans into optimism. As my colleague Matthew Knott noted, he said the word “opportunity” nine times, and downplayed all downside, saying, “It is not our goal to try and legislate for every possible eventuality or risk”.AdvertisementOn the job losses front, the evidence is mixed. A recent report from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations found “no evidence to date of broad labour market upheaval driven by AI”.But employment growth has slowed in occupations exposed to automation, and in those sorts of jobs there has also been slower growth in hours worked.An analysis released by UBS this week found that over the next three to five years, ASX companies could potentially shed between 10 per cent and 15 per cent of their workforces under a “moderate AI adoption scenario”, and almost 20 per cent under a more extreme scenario.My colleague Millie Muroi reported this week that employees at the West Australian mining giant Mineral Resources have been told the company will not hire staff if a role can be done by AI, or an existing employee who can use AI tools to augment their work.AdvertisementOf course, attempts to replace humans with bots can backfire – last year the Commonwealth Bank sacked 45 customer service workers in favour of an AI voice bot, only to backtrack and admit an “error” after a union backlash and a spike in workload for the remaining call centre workers.But the bank has also rolled out a $90 million program to prepare staff for an AI-driven workplace, as have many major companies around Australia (including my employer). The first message at a recent AI information session I attended was: “AI is not here to replace you, but to help you”. It was less than comforting. As a criminal defence lawyer might say – you should never repeat the allegation.The prospect of widespread job losses across the economy is real. At best, we are probably in for massive job market dislocation, as some roles suddenly cease to exist, and there is a lag before others are created.Talk to anyone under 30 and their preoccupation is which jobs will be “AI-proof”.This has flow-on effects for education. If information and advice about anything is available to all, the most important skills will be discernment, critical analysis and interpersonal relations.AdvertisementPeople who read books – particularly dense or difficult ones – may become an elite class.In his speech this week, Albanese guaranteed existing copyright protections for artists, musicians and writers. But there is no reason to believe the AI companies will respect sovereign copyright laws. AI bots are already making incursions into fiction writing and music-making, although I would always argue that robots can never best human creativity.This is why the idea of a basic universal income has become current, as has the idea of universal basic capital, whereby members of society would be given an equity stake in the AI technology that has disrupted their ability to work for money.The political implications are unclear because the only guiding political principle now is that nothing is certain.AdvertisementBut AI poses a major threat to the Australian notion of egalitarianism – the value we can most credibly claim as our own. The economic ructions from AI will probably confuse the traditional positions of left and right. If the workers most threatened by AI are white-collar professionals, will Labor look after them?Does the Coalition, the party of business, have any plan to allay the anxieties of professional-class workers whose interests could end up in stark opposition to the goals of business?Does Labor have a plan for how it can prevent businesses from doing what businesses are supposed to do, which is to deliver shareholder value through heightened productivity?And as for One Nation – whose leader, Pauline Hanson, believes workers are “lazy” and “on their phones” – how will her supporters deal with the very real economic disruption to come, as opposed to the putative political disruption she represents?The answer is just as uncertain as everything else about the AI-driven future.AdvertisementJacqueline Maley is an author and columnist.Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.SaveYou have reached your maximum number of saved items.Remove items from your saved list to add more.ShareLicense this articleMore:AIOpinionFor subscribersIndustrial relationsJobsData centresJacqueline Maley is a columnist.Connect via X, Facebook or email.AdvertisementAdvertisement