Governments debate AI regulation models, from aviation analogies to resilience strategies

Bloomberg Opinion contributor Gautam Mukunda argues that AI should be regulated using the same safety‑focused framework that governs aviation, pointing to the FAA’s role in establishing global standards. He warns of AI’s economic and security risks, including potential use in cyber‑attacks and future weapons, and cites China’s lighter‑handed approach and its reliance on U.S. research as a contrast.

In Australia, Paul Budde says the federal government’s new AI regulatory framework is a first step, but stresses the need for a broader AI infrastructure strategy. He likens AI to critical national infrastructure such as telecommunications, emphasizing questions of ownership, access, resilience, and value capture. Budde draws parallels to the 2022 Telstra outage to illustrate how AI system failures could have far‑reaching consequences.

Both pieces highlight the growing consensus that AI regulation must go beyond simple rules to address strategic, security and economic dimensions.