This case study explores risk regulation in AI systems in government settings, suggesting improvements for effectiveness.
In many countries, risk regulation is central to AI regulation. We examine generative AI (genAI) risk regulation in Australia through a case study of the trial deployment of Microsoft Copilot in government agencies. Risk mitigation depended on end-users’ responsibility for human review and fact-checking, readiness testing, and contractual assurance from vendors, but largely ignored the impact on team dynamics and long-term implication on human abilities. Three areas of improvement were identified: strengthening fact-checking and review by users lacking in time, knowledge and experience; addressing the impact on team dynamics and human abilities; and measures for impending uses of genAI systems as internal and public-facing government chatbots which are anchored on government-mandated collaboration among developers, deployers and users.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lamchek et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: