Why Buzzwords Must Not Win This War

By Mia Wegener, University of Melbourne (Faculty of Business and Economics), AI for Good, 2025

“We have been pervaded by a zeitgeist of fear” 

I wrote these words a few years ago as the opening lines to a school assignment. At the time they were intended histrionically, but as I was reading coverage from the Australian Financial Review’s Annual Business Summit, I realised that the sentiment is a rather apt depiction of our current reality – or at least, our reality as it is popularly perceived. 

The idea that exaggerated narratives drive readership is, unfortunately, uncontested. In an age where retail politics dominate the global stage, technical accuracy is often subordinated to sweeping hyperboles and demagogic discourse. Looking back on my notes from the bilateral meetings I attended during the Pre-Departure Briefing in Canberra earlier this year, I realised that I too, had fallen victim to the power of inflammatory language. I had prioritised filling my pages with poignant phrases – articulated with such expertise that distinguishing between fact and opinions didn’t even feel necessary.  

Me in a desperate attempt to jot down all those poignant phrases.

This is not to say that the insights of esteemed, well-researched individuals should be discarded or taken lightly. However, it is perilously easy to forget that pithy aphorisms can serve a cosmetic purpose as much as an educational one. The art of streamlining complex issues into memorable catchphrases has become radically normalised; a trend that almost always comes at the expense of a more nuanced truth.   

This phenomenon is especially problematic in discussions around AI and machine learning. Although AI’s practical applications have been democratised – think ChatGPT’s user-friendly interface or Snapchat’s charming AI assistant – the underlying algorithms remain understood by only a small circle of technocrats. By dressing up AI’s machinations with a jolly countenance and polite mannerisms, it has become a subject particularly vulnerable to reduction by simplistic soundbites.  

AI for Good?  

Against this backdrop, I pondered the name of the Convention my delegation is attending: “AI for Good”.  

Is it a question – prompting us to ask whether AI can truly be good?  

Is it a challenge – obliging us to prove AI’s capacity for good?  

Is it simply an affirmation – a truism that we need only emphasise?  

“AI for Good” is catchy yet gnomic. It leaves a pleasant taste in the mind of the reader while simultaneously raising deeper – more insidious – questions:  

How can we judge whether AI is being used for good? Who gets to define good? Even when AI serves an ostensibly “good” purpose, do its benefits reach everyone equally, or only a select few? Does using AI for good mean maximising innovation or minimising risk?  

The result is political discourse steeped in metaphors and binaries. Policies built on oversimplification fail to capture the multidimensional – often chaotic – reality of technological progress. Globally, a pervasive narrative revolves around “winning the AI race” or “averting existential threats”. This alarmism preys on the information asymmetry related to AI’s technicalities, further reducing a sophisticated challenge into a foreboding monolith.  

Australia is particularly vulnerable to this trend  

A nation in search of affirmation, Australia exists in a perpetual state of self-doubt – too big to be small, yet not quite loud, wealthy, or influential enough to intimidate. This inherent uncertainty of self makes catchy slogans and buzzwords all the more appealing. Simply put, when we lack confidence in our own direction, we latch onto the loudest narratives available.  

I arrived in Canberra frustrated by Australia’s inaction on AI regulation. While nations like the EU, US, China, and Switzerland have taken clear regulatory stances, Australia remains hesitant. No specific AI regulation has been enacted, and potential reforms under consideration offer no clear timeline.   

The dash to regulate: strategy or panic?  

The concept of a global race for AI regulation is a powerful, yet dangerous narrative. It plays into our insecurities by suggesting that if we do not push aggressively ahead, we will fall irrevocably behind.  

But is Australia truly in a race?  

Crucially, this race is rooted in predictive permissibility – the assumption that, because rapid technological progress seems inevitable, we must accelerate our efforts to deal with it at all costs. This urgent mindset reduces vital regulatory considerations to mere technicalities.  

Yet, AI is not an uncontrollable force. It is a tool whose impact depends on our choices – how we code it, regulate it, and integrate it into society. For as long as agentic AI remains science fiction (perhaps forever although I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility entirely), accountability resides in our strategic decisions.  

No doubt, the technology is evolving rapidly, and regulation is needed, but we must be careful not to conflate the risks tangential to AI with AI itself. Allowing policy to be dictated by fearmongering will only incite a destructive cycle of erratic decision-making.  

Playing the long game

So perhaps Australia is playing the long game. Perhaps I underestimated our policymakers for pursuing a route that seeks to chase the good bits of AI while mitigating the bad bits. This approach may seem idealistic or indecisive. It is certainly unlikely to yield immediate results compared to nations with a more aggressive stance (whether that be pro-regulation or pro-innovation). But in this so-called “age of uncertainty”, perhaps allowing institutions space to balance AI’s potential with safety considerations, is key in strengthening Australia’s position over the long term.  

Mia with Prof. of International Politics, Toni Erskine, and her AI For Good 2025 GV Fellows.

Moving in the right direction...  

Global power dynamics are being redefined in terms of technological advancement – a future to be won or lost on tech grounds. Genuine progress will not emerge from the clamour of empty phrases. It will come from clear-eyed, pragmatic strategies, defined by purpose rather than circular rhetoric or incendiary metaphors. 

The real challenge, then, is not whether Australia is moving “fast enough” but whether we are moving in the right direction at all – one determined by our national integrity and not an anxious need to win a race we do not yet fully understand.   

-------

The views and opinions expressed by Global Voices Fellows do not necessarily reflect those of the organisation or its staff.