While the government's public consultation on AI transparency sounds commendable, there are reasons to be skeptical about its real impact. Consultations of this kind often gather hundreds of submissions but rarely lead to bold policy change. Without a clear commitment to enact binding rules, the process risks becoming a symbolic exercise that delays meaningful action.
Industry groups with deep pockets and experienced lobbyists are likely to dominate the conversation. Individual citizens may struggle to understand the technical nuances, leading to submissions that are easily set aside. The government has not specified how it will weigh competing interests or ensure that marginalized voices are heard, not just drowned out.
Moreover, transparency alone cannot solve the deeper problems of AI, such as bias, privacy violations, and job displacement. A consultation that focuses narrowly on disclosure may distract from the need for stronger enforcement, independent audits, and a ban on harmful uses. The timeline is also vague; no deadline for action has been set, raising concerns that the process will stall.
If the government is serious about accountability, it should complement the consultation with a clear regulatory roadmap and interim safeguards. Without those, the public may be left with little more than the illusion of influence.