Elon Musk’s lawsuit against Sam Altman and Open AI brings up thorny questions about AI governance and the public interest (but they aren’t the ones listed in the complaint).

As gateways to large sections of the private rental market, these platforms are uniquely positioned to promote norms and enforce standards in rental allocation. At a time of low vacancy rates, slowing supply, and rising housing stress, power imbalances between renters and property owners are acute. Through choices about design, features and business models, platforms can reinforce or exploit these inequities OR try to work against them.

AI firms are trying to democratise the process of deciding the principles and values which guide the behaviour of their systems. When AI firms talk about democratising governance, they are mostly talking about seeking non-binding public input. But public participation, even when inclusive, does not amount to democratisation. Democratisation, defined minimally as a system of governance responsive to ‘the people’, requires something else: contestability.

The Attorney-General Department’s highly anticipated Privacy Review Report proposes some fundamental and much needed amendments to Australia’s outdated privacy laws – among them, a proposal to change the rules that apply to political parties when they handle our personal information.

Election campaigns are increasingly data-driven. In recent years, high-profile scandals involving data-driven campaigning have made voter privacy a pressing public concern. Yet, political parties currently can collect and use personal information as they see fit. Broad exemptions sewn into the Privacy Act over 20 years ago exempt parties from the same rules that apply to most other organisations.