Cannabis inquiry takes leaf from artificial intelligence

More than one in 10 submissions to the Greens-backed Senate inquiry into legalising cannabis were likely generated by artificial intelligence, analysis by The Australian has found.

There has been a broader increase in the number of submissions to parliamentary inquiries produced wholly or in part by large language model tools like ChatGPT, as society grapples with when and where AI-produced work is acceptable. Picture: SEBASTIEN BOZON / AFP

More than one in 10 submissions to the Greens-backed Senate inquiry into legalising cannabis were likely generated by artificial intelligence, analysis by The Australian has found.

It is part of a broader increase in the number of submissions to parliamentary inquiries produced wholly or in part by large language model tools such as ChatGPT.

The inquiry into legalising cannabis is the first Australian parliamentary inquiry where more than 10 per cent of submissions were likely AI-written.

Of just under 5000 analysable submissions to parliamentary inquiries since November 2022 – when ChatGPT was launched and generative AI punctured the public consciousness – about 170 of those were likely to have been wholly or partially AI-produced, the analysis found.

To conduct this analysis, The Australian used algorithms that guessed whether text was produced by a human or by a large language model.

Schools and universities often use similar software to help determine whether students have submitted AI-generated work.

While these algorithms are not perfect – they do not pick up everything and can label something as AI generated when it’s not – they are broadly indicative over large datasets.

This comes amid a broader social reckoning about when and where AI-generated work is acceptable. School students, lawyers and university professors have been caught using ChatGPT sometimes because the chatbot “hallucinated” – that is, was not factual.

In the case of the cannabis legalisation inquiry, of the 24 submissions likely produced by AI, there were some that made little effort to hide its progeny. Notably, many used the US spelling of “legalization” instead of the Australian “legalisation”.

For example, one read: “Cannabis legalization has been a topic of significant debate worldwide, and Australia is no exception.”

During the past few months Greens senator David Shoebridge, who sponsored the bill and is a member of the Senate Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs overseeing the inquiry, has been urging voters to send in submissions.

“The most useful thing that could be done is putting in a barrage of submissions to the inquiry in support of the bill,” he told an inquiry submissions web­inar a few months ago.

“A barrage of submissions supporting the bill will kind of be essential for us to have the momentum by the middle of next year.”

When contacted for comment, Senator Shoebridge told The Australian this did not take away from the intention of the submissions.

“Given a key demographic of supporters is in the under-35 age range and they are digital natives, it would be a surprise if a small group didn’t use AI to assist in drafting submissions,” Senator Shoebridge said.

“This is part of how people will increasingly engage with parliament and other inquiries, leaning into AI to draft res­ponses.

“At the end of the day these are submissions from real people who are real supporters of this essential reform, and that’s the key takeaway.”