Peter Lewis urges Australians to challenge claims that AI is unstoppable
Opinion columnist Peter Lewis argues that tech companies are using an "inevitability doctrine" to convince us that AI's rapid development is unstoppable and beyond public control, thereby sidelining democratic participation. He contends this narrative is particularly dangerous in Australia, where the government is positioning the country as a global AI hub powered by renewable energy, despite the technology's documented harms including job displacement, use of stolen creator work, and significant environmental demands.
Lewis points to signs of growing resistance across Australia: a successful GetUp campaign pressuring Coles to end its partnership with Palantir, a US military contractor; creators demanding compensation for work used to train AI models; and the collapse of the Firmus IPO, which would have been Australia's biggest float since Telstra, partly attributed to community opposition to data centre expansion. He argues these counter-movements suggest democratic institutions remain capable of shaping AI's trajectory rather than passively accepting it as inevitable.
- Tech companies use "inevitability" narrative to bypass democratic debate about AI
- Australia positions itself as AI hub despite risks to workers, creators and environment
- Public resistance campaigns in Australia suggest AI outcomes remain negotiable
New here? Start with this
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems can generate text, images and other material, and are increasingly used by businesses and governments. They need large amounts of data and computing power, often supplied by data centres, and their effects can include changes to jobs and disputes over how creators’ work is used.
In Australia, the government wants the country to become a major centre for AI, supported by renewable energy. The debate involves technology companies, policymakers, workers, creators and local communities, who have differing interests in how the systems are built and used.
Public campaigns have challenged some AI-related business ties and data centre plans, while creators have called for payment when their work is used to train models. These disputes raise questions about who should influence AI development and how its costs and benefits should be shared.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Lewis’s argument is that treating AI’s expansion as inevitable can remove important choices from public debate, even though its effects on jobs, creators and the environment are real. Australians should be able to scrutinise the government’s ambition to make the country an AI hub and use democratic pressure to shape where the technology is deployed and who benefits.
The case against
Advocates of rapid AI development could argue that investment may bring economic growth, useful services and new industries, and that Australia can help guide the technology by building expertise and setting practical safeguards. They may see resistance to particular partnerships or data centres as a reason to address local concerns, rather than evidence that broader development should be slowed or treated with suspicion.
AI Americas Business Technology World
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by The Guardian as “The biggest threat from AI is the sense that we have no say in it. To that I say game on | Peter Lewis”.