Tech companies Amazon, Google and Meta have been criticised by a Senate select committee inquiry for being especially vague over how they used Australian data to train their powerful artificial intelligence products.
Labor senator Tony Sheldon, the inquiry's chair, was frustrated by the multinationals' refusal to answer direct questions about their use of Australians' private and personal information.
"Watching Amazon, Meta, and Google dodge questions during the hearings was like sitting through a cheap magic trick - plenty of hand-waving, a puff of smoke, and nothing to show for it in the end," Sheldon said in a statement, after releasing the final report of the inquiry on Tuesday.
He called the tech companies "pirates" that were "pillaging our culture, data, and creativity for their gain while leaving Australians empty-handed."
The report found some general-purpose AI models - such as OpenAI's GPT, Meta's Llama and Google's Gemini - should automatically default to a "high risk" category, and be subjected to mandated transparency and accountability requirements.
Several key themes emerged during the inquiry and in its report.
Standalone AI laws needed
Sheldon said Australia needed "new standalone AI laws" to "rein in big tech" and that existing laws should be amended as necessary.
"They want to set their own rules, but Australians need laws that protect rights, not Silicon Valley's bottom line," he said.
He said Amazon had refused during the inquiry to disclose how it used data recorded from Alexa devices, Kindle or Audible to train its AI.
Related: Australia to pursue AI and social media regulation despite any Trump administration opposition, MP says
Google too, he said, had refused to answer questions about what user data from its services and products it used to train its AI products.
Meta admitted it had been scraping from Australian Facebook and Instagram users since 2007, in preparation for future AI models. But the company was unable to explain how users could consent for their data to be used for something that did not exist in 2007.
Sheldon said Meta dodged questions about how it used data from its WhatsApp and Messenger products.
AI 'high risk' for creative workers
The report found that creative workers were at the most imminent risk of AI severely affecting their livelihoods.
It recommended payment mechanisms be put in place to compensate creatives when AI-generated work was based on their original material.
Developers of AI models needed to be transparent about the use of copyrighted works in their datasets, the report said. Any declared work should be licensed and paid for.