sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Labour eyes tight energy rules for data centres, copyright protections for artists and media, education, productivity focus and more in AI policy

Technology / news
Labour eyes tight energy rules for data centres, copyright protections for artists and media, education, productivity focus and more in AI policy

Labour is following Australia's artificial intelligence (AI) roadmap, promising to introduce an Office of AI, a minister responsible for AI, tight new rules for data centre electricity use and copyright protections for artists and media. 

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said New Zealand "cannot leave it to big international tech companies to decide how it shapes our future."

Asked how it was different to Australia's policy, Hipkins said Labour had "looked at the Australians, we've looked around the world, and we've looked at what the unique needs are for New Zealand, and we've come up with an action plan that's based on all of that work."

"If we can align with Australia, that's going to be good for our creative sector, who often work on both sides of the Tasman. It's going to be good for our business community, who can work on both sides of the Tasman, and it's going to create more certainty and stability for everybody involved," he said. 

"I make no apology for the fact that there's a lot of similarities between what we want to do and what the Australians are doing."

The party's technology spokesperson Reuben Davidson said if elected in November's election, the party would "make big data centres pay their own way, securing their own renewable energy and covering their own connection costs."

"New Zealand households shouldn't be subsidising the power bills of overseas tech companies."

An Office of AI would coordinate AI policy across government. Hipkins wants this to be done by moving the Government's digital delivery agency (GDDA), which has only recently moved its functions from the Department of Internal Affairs to the Public Service Commission, into the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Hipkins said the Commission "is not there to be a delivery agency". He also confirmed he did not want a 'Minister of AI', but instead a senior minister with AI in their portfolio. 

National recently announced it would require new data centres to have a 'additionality test,' so they would be accompanied by new, firmed power generation.

"Requiring new firmed [back up power] generation alongside new data centres means the development of digital infrastructure doesn’t put upward pressure on power prices for households and businesses, while giving energy developers the committed customers they need to finance new generation," National's policy statement said.

Labour's plan includes:

  • Establish an Office of AI to coordinate AI policy across government
  • Establish an online safety regulator within the Department for Internal Affairs
  • Develop a copyright framework so creators control and are paid for their work
  • Set clear rules for data centres so households aren't left carrying the cost
  • Support small businesses and community organisations to adopt AI safely
  • Establish an AI in Education team to support schools, teachers and students
  • Work with businesses and unions to make sure productivity gains show up in wages and conditions

It is similar to Australia's AI roadmap, released in July, where Prime Minister Anthony Albanese unveiled a plan to create a new Office of AI, new energy rules for data centres and legal protections for local content. 

Davidson said there were currently no adequate protections in place to safeguard the work of artists and the creative community.

 "And it's government's responsibility to step in and put a framework in place that gives our creative communities confidence that they can continue to be some of the best in the world."

Asked how they would actually enforce copyright measures on big tech companies, Davidson said that was where; "the strength in... harmonising legislation with the likes of Australia comes into play, making sure that we can be a strong country of five million, but we can also work with bigger neighbours and between us be a stronger force to ensure that creatives get what they deserve."

Hipkins said New Zealand needed to catch up.

"The more we can align with other like-minded countries - including Australia, the European Union are having very active debates on these issues at the moment, the more we can align with those countries, the more clout we're going to have, and the more successful we can be."

RNZ reported ACT leader David Seymour saying the Ministry for Regulation has issued guidance to every government department on AI, there was already an online safety regulator in the DIA, "and so far as trying to to get ahead of and take advantage of the economic benefits, Labour sound like they're taking an approach that this is all bad."

"There are risks with AI, but actually we should be looking to make better use of it," Seymour said.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

32 Comments

You lost me at “Labour promises….”

Up
9

Labour promises new rules...

new rules, new rules, new rules, more rules, more control, less freedom. I hate that the government thinks it knows better and that it has to protect everyone from themselves.

Up
4

Rules govern society function and have done since humans walked the earth, in some form or another.

As societies and the technologies adopted  become more complex, then rules need to address that for the benefit of society cohesion. Well that's the theory. Of course there have always been elites that subvert the rule setting process to self benefit or protect their self define privileged position.

Good regulation constrains abuse of privileged position and allows individuals and society as a whole to function effectively. Yes, regulations place curbs on individual freedoms.

In AI, I suggest there is real fear about potential abuse of the freedoms you espouse, and how that abuse may penetrate throughout individual's rights to freedom of action, expression, and daily existence.

I support regulation to establish boundaries around the concentrated power of the massive offshore  corporations, to limit impact on NZ sovereignty and individual citizens. It is the manner in which those regulations are developed and imposed that is more important than the fact they are new and additional regulations. 

Up
15

The NZ government cannot regulate AI use or its features, to basically any degree. 

If the ability to legally use the best offshore corporations AI products was seriously restricted in any material way, everyone with a use case (good or bad) would just use a VPN, funnel money through an offshore account or crypto etc, and have identical access as today.

We are simply along for the ride, we are not a large or powerful nation. 

Maybe we get to sell some electricity, which we have a comparative advantage in generating, which would be nice. But hey if we want to be poorer for no reason, then all good I guess.

Up
3

Well at least you read further than bubbles I guess.

Up
7

You sound like a boomer who spends all day watching AI slop propaganda on Facebook. The irony is you might actually be someone in need of protection! 

Up
1

What a dipstick comment. 

There's plenty of gen X and gen Y around that have exerted significant influence of the state of NZ. Where do you fit?

Yes, I'm a boomer. I've lived through 66% marginal tax rate, 20+% mortgage interest rates, Rogernomics brutal economic reform, collapse of pipfruit orchard and sheep and beef land values that make the current hous price falls look a mere ripple. The transition from horse to motorbike on farm, advent of the pc computer (I bought my first in 1987, $4k, and taught myself how to spreadsheet on Lotus 123. 

Up
9

If it makes you fel any better Lou I think your comments have been very good. And I'm not a boomer (although not that far off)  

Up
4

Almost every Labour policy seems to either cost money or in this case reduce productivity. How can they pay for it with no new taxes? 

Up
2

Your first sentence is that of an economist.

So is the second. 

We are headed for a showdown; the latest manifestation of attempted 'growth', vs the planet which cannot support it anymore. 

And people who still string sentences together lauding 'money' - maybe they don't understand where the debt is heading. 

Actually, not maybe. 

Up
2

AI, for the record, isn't about 'productivity' - that's an economics misunderstanding based on Adam Smith, who somewhat predated fossil energy and who wouldn't have known the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics if he fell over it (like most current economists). 

It is about an ever-less Elite, garnering ever-more of our resources, output, lives, use. If they are using the water and the power - we aren't. Simple displacement. 

Then there's the fact that it will inevitably self-replicate/advance, faster than we can put the genie back in the IC. One of the less sapient moves our species ever made. And perhaps leading to its last. 

Up
4

You are fundamentally misunderstanding it. AI is an energy efficiency improvement tool. 

Instead of paying a human to do something slowly and expensively you can use a couple cents worth of electricity to do it. Of course the efficiency gains get turned into a surplus for additional consumption rather than lowering resource use. Good IMO because we are talking about access for the populace to what would have been very expensive white color work. Or the ability to do things that would have taken a very long time to do manually (time you don't have if you are on a lower income)

Up
1

What is the economic value of using electricity to make a 30 sec fake video of someone doing something they didnt do?

Up
3

Immeasurable.

Up
1

This seems like a popular opinion right. At least if the anti AI FB pages I follow are to go by. 

I am curious, have you used any decent model for anything?

 

I am an outlier I know. But my work has transformed completely, my personal projects are so much better off.

For an interesting personal example, I am applying for a citizenship by descent for somewhere not New Zealand. I need to trawl through archives of multiple governments and special interest genealogy websites, old newspapers, baptism and marriage records, organise all the leads, turn old timey cursive which I cannot for the life of me read, into searchable text. Gathering the required primary evidence, and then understanding the intricacies of the application and putting it together.

I started this a year or so ago, before the tools were good and gave up. Would it have been possible if I had the time and motivation to finish it then? probably. But it is enabling me to put together a much more solid application than I would have, and is far more efficient with my time.

Up
2

Anyone who has used AI in the last 6 months for use cases it is good at will know just how amazing, scary, and sometimes flawed it is. But it seems to get so much better every 6 months, I have no doubt it will be much smarter than us very soon, which is a scary but inevitable outcome. 

Up
5

I have not and my question was what economic value does a 30 sec fake video provide?....the point being what the electricity is used for should be  the measure. Even where some efficiency gains can be made there is the question of costs of error and rework/checking...its not as if we dont have some other critical uses for that energy.

And then there is the question of its application....are we to trust it to determine who what and how and then ultimately review its own decisions?

I have little faith in the new Messiah.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201905126…

 

Up
2

Doesn't seem like a very useful question though. 

It's like saying what economic value do cars have when people sometimes use them to drive as fast as they can in circles around a track. Entertainment I guess? But that doesn't really say very much about the usefulness of the underlying technology.

Up
0

It does when you consider the overwhelming use...we could restrict its use to things potentially useful (ideally a closed system) and not make it available for pointless energy consumption..sadly market dynamics will likely ensure that most of its use will be wasteful and uncontrolled....nevermind the fact it will likely determine that humans are a net liability

Up
0

And what is productive about that. What did that effort actually produce of worth?

Up
0

I place a very high value on having dual citizenship. The family history aspect is neat.

Up
0

This is because PDK fundamentally misunderstands where the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics sits. He is the master of category errors though.

I got AI to check PDK's comment:

"Yes — PDK is making a category error. In fact, several. He’s collapsing physics, economics, political sociology, and AI capability forecasting into one explanatory frame. That produces confident but logically invalid conclusions."

Up
1

Hope you didn't waste our last kW of energy on that 

Up
3

You obviously asked AI "is PDK making a category error?," a leading question, and AI obliged with the response you wanted, cause that is what AI tends to do. 

Up
3

Asking whether an argument commits a category error is not "leading"; it’s a standard logical analysis request. Similar to running a spellcheck.
Whenever I see mention of "The 2nd Law" or rhetorical use of mathematical and physics terms I know exactly where to strike.
 

Up
0

So: more government departments, but no details on how any of this is to be achieved, or on rules that will probably be made obsolescent by the technology by the time any regulations see a select committee. 

Up
2

The main argument seems to be around selling our electricity to the world via AI. It will probably bump up our electricity prices, but also our wealth (I can feel a PDK comment coming). You could make similar arguments about dairy; we could keep it to ourselves and have much cheaper food. 

Up
3

You put money in both.

Come on

This is about displacement. As almost everything is. And if foreign entities own the data centres and haggle as per Comalco - where's your 'wealth' coming from? It's going, not coming. 

Just as with dairy - we are degrading our soils and waterways; losing biodiversity, helping the planet carry an overshot (human) population, and doing it all on the back of fossil-fuel depletion (many calories thereof, to one of exported food). It's not even clever. You run out of fossil energy, find you haven't the energy to put the results of your rapacious depletion to rights, and you've got what? A pile of worthless digits in a (probably collapsed) bank computer? 

Only someone who had been taught economics, could possibly assert that to be a good thing. 

Up
2

If it makes you feel any better, with my engineering hat on I don't see how NZ is in a better place to power AI than other places.  Chuck it in the Arctic with a nuclear reactor to power it, or near a desert with solar up the wazoo, etc. 

Up
0

You could make similar arguments about dairy; we could keep it to ourselves and have much cheaper food. 

I don't think that in either case things would be better for the consumer by banning exports, ignoring the foreign exchange impact for now.

Both industries have a lot to gain from scale. You see the small inefficient dairy industries overseas which need constant support from their various governments. 

On the electricity side, we have a large amount transmission infrastructure that sits idle but still requires exactly the same amount of maintenance. Growth in the system lowers the impact of dry spells on our (surprisingly crap) legacy hydro system, with its very low storage to generation volume ratios. The largest solar and wind projects are the most cost / resource efficient, only an option with scale.

Up
0

Information technology, which includes AI, could be mankind's greatest achievement. It may even be the solution to the Fermi Paradox. This dawned on me while attending a work do the other night, listening to and participating in "conversations'. I couldn't wait to get back to my computer and catch up with YouTube content creators of my choosing. 

In the future we will build, no doubt with the assistance of AI, magnificent and vast, virtual worlds. Worlds without limits, worlds that require far fewer resources than interstellar travel would. Why venture into the extremely hostile, cold and lonely, expanse of space, when we have unlimited virtual worlds to explore at home? More advanced alien civilizations will have already achieved digital ascension.

I asked AI what it thought about this. It's response, "If anything, Zachary, you’re ahead of the curve".

We mustn't allow politicians to block the path to digital ascension.

Up
0

Great use of irony 

Up
2