MIL-OSI Export

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Celeste Rodriguez Louro, Associate Professor, Chair of Linguistics and Director of Language Lab, The University of Western Australia

Claims that artificial intelligence (AI) is on the verge of surpassing human intelligence have become commonplace. According to some commentators, rapid advances in large language models signal an imminent tipping point – often framed as “superintelligence” – that will fundamentally reshape society.

But comparing AI to individual intelligence misses something essential about what human intelligence is. Our intelligence doesn’t operate primarily at the level of isolated individuals. It is social, embodied and collective. Once this is taken seriously, the claim that AI is set to surpass human intelligence becomes far less convincing.

These claims rest on a particular comparison: AI systems are measured against individual human cognitive performance. Can a machine write an essay, pass an exam, diagnose disease, or compose music as well as a person? On these narrow benchmarks, AI appears impressive.

Yet this framing mirrors the limitations of traditional intelligence testing itself: cultural bias, and a reward for familiarity and practice. The rise of AI should therefore prompt more thought about what we mean by intelligence, pushing us to move beyond narrow cognitive metrics, and even beyond popular expansions such as emotional intelligence, toward richer, more contextual definitions.

Intelligence is not individual brilliance

Human cognitive achievements are often attributed to exceptional individuals, but this is misleading. Research in cognitive science and anthropology shows that even our most advanced ideas emerge from collective processes: shared language, cultural transmission, cooperation and cumulative learning across generations.

No scientist, engineer or artist works alone. Scientific discovery depends on shared methods, peer review and institutions. Language itself – arguably humanity’s most powerful cognitive technology – is a collective achievement, refined and modified over thousands of years through social interaction.

Studies of “collective intelligence” consistently show that groups can outperform even their most capable members when diversity of perspectives, communication and coordination are present. This collective capacity is not an optional add-on to human intelligence; it is its foundation.

AI systems, by contrast, do not cooperate, negotiate meaning, form social bonds or engage in shared moral reasoning. They process information in isolation, responding to prompts without awareness, intention or accountability.

Embodiment and social understanding matter

Human intelligence is also embodied. Our thinking is shaped by physical experience, emotion and social interaction. Developmental psychology shows that learning begins in infancy through touch, movement, imitation and shared attention with others. These embodied experiences ground abstract reasoning later in life.

AI lacks this grounding. Language models learn statistical patterns from text, not meaning from lived experience. They do not understand concepts in the way humans do; they approximate linguistic responses based on correlations in data.

This limitation becomes clear in social and ethical contexts. Humans navigate norms, values and emotional cues through interaction and shared cultural understandings we are socialised into. Machines do not.

A narrow slice of humanity

Proponents of AI progress often point to the vast amounts of data used to train modern systems. Yet this data represents a remarkably narrow slice of humanity.

Around 80% of online content is produced in just ten languages. Although more than 7,000 languages are spoken worldwide, only a few hundred are consistently represented on the internet – and far fewer in high-quality, machine-readable form.

This matters because language carries culture, values and ways of thinking. Training AI on a largely homogenised data set means embedding the perspectives, assumptions and biases of a relatively small portion of the world’s population.

Human intelligence, by contrast, is defined by diversity. Eight billion people, living in different environments and social systems, contribute to a shared but plural cognitive landscape.

AI does not have access to this richness, nor can it generate it independently. The data on which it is trained stems from a highly biased sample, representing only a percentage of world knowledge.

The limits of scaling

Another issue rarely addressed in claims about “superhuman” AI is data scarcity. Large models improve by ingesting more high-quality data, but this is a finite resource. Researchers have already warned that models are approaching the limits of available human-generated text suitable for training.

One proposed solution is to train AI on data generated by other AI systems. But this risks creating a feedback loop in which errors, biases and simplifications are amplified rather than corrected. Instead of learning from the world, models learn from distorted reflections of themselves.

This is not a path to deeper understanding. It is closer to an echo chamber.

Useful tools, not superior minds

None of this is to deny that AI systems are powerful tools. They can increase efficiency, assist research, support decision-making and expand access to information. Used carefully and with oversight, they can be socially beneficial.

But usefulness is not the same as intelligence in the human sense. AI remains narrow, derivative and dependent on human input, evaluation and correction. It does not form intentions, participate in collective reasoning or contribute to the cultural processes that make human intelligence what it is.

The rapid progress of AI has generated excitement – and, in some quarters, exaggerated expectations. The danger is not that machines will out-think us tomorrow, but that inflated narratives distract from real issues: bias, governance, labour impacts and the responsible integration of these tools into society.

A category error

Comparing AI to human intelligence as though they are competing on the same terms is ultimately a category error. Humans are not isolated information processors. We are social beings whose intelligence emerges from cooperation, diversity and shared meaning.

Until machines can participate in that collective, embodied and ethical dimension of cognition – and there is no evidence they can – the idea that AI will surpass human intelligence remains more hype than insight.

Celeste Rodriguez Louro receives funding from Google.

Jennifer Rodger does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why comparisons between AI and human intelligence miss the point – https://theconversation.com/why-comparisons-between-ai-and-human-intelligence-miss-the-point-274621

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/06/why-comparisons-between-ai-and-human-intelligence-miss-the-point-274621/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Geoff Scott, Department of Pro Vice Chancellor (Society), UNSW Sydney; Indigenous Knowledge

The defeat of the Voice referendum was not simply a political loss. It was a political and cultural failure. It exposed, yet again, the profound immaturity of Australia’s political life when it comes to First Nations people. It’s an immaturity that’s shared, in different ways, by governments, by sections of the Australian public and by parts of the Indigenous body politic itself.

For more than a century, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have said the same thing in different ways: we need political voice. Not symbolism. Not better programs designed for us by others. Not endless reviews that gather dust.

We need a recognised, authoritative place within Australia’s democratic system where our voices can be heard, argued over, refined and carried forward. That was the core insight of the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

The referendum failed. But what followed has been worse. Rather than a period of reflection, listening and recalibration, we have seen a rapid return to the habits that produced failure in the first place: coercion, denial, performative outrage and a retreat into slogans.

The politics of denial

Nowhere is this clearer than in the annual ritual that follows Australia Day.

Every January, Australia re-enacts the same argument. On one side, barely veiled racism and contempt toward Aboriginal people who ask for a respectful acknowledgement of the violence and dispossession that began on 26 January 1788.

On the other, calls for sovereignty and treaty that are often detached from any serious engagement with history, constitutional reality or political strategy.

Neither side is helping.

---

This article is an edited extract from our chapter in the new book The Failure of the Voice Referendum and the Future of Australian Democracy, edited by professors Gabrielle Appleby and Megan Davis.

---

Australia Day has become a symbol not of unity, but of political immaturity. Governments insist on a one-size-fits-all celebration in a country that is culturally, historically and politically diverse.

Aboriginal leaders are expected to absorb the pain quietly, while local councils are threatened if they make any changes to celebrations.

Unity also cannot be achieved through symbolic gestures alone. Changing the date, by itself, will not empower our people. Without constitutional reform – without structures that allow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to participate meaningfully in decisions that affect us – we are left arguing over symbols while the underlying power imbalance remains untouched.

That is the tragedy of the post-referendum moment. The failure of the Voice has not produced humility or learning. It has produced entrenchment.

A failed political culture

Non-Indigenous Australia continues to demand unanimity from Aboriginal people — a standard applied to no other group in the country. Disagreement among First Nations people is treated as evidence of illegitimacy rather than as a normal feature of democratic life.

At the same time, parts of Indigenous politics have absorbed the worst habits of the dominant culture. Calls for sovereignty and Treaty are made without articulating what these concepts mean in practice, how they would be achieved, or how they would materially improve the lives of our children.

Culture is invoked rhetorically but not practised — elders ignored, process dismissed, deliberation replaced by performance.

The Regional Dialogues that produced the Uluru Statement were powerful precisely because they involved the crucial work of listening, patience and collaboration. For the first time in more than a decade, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had the time, resources and authority to debate our political future on our own terms.

People disagreed — strongly — but they did so within a shared commitment to process.

The Voice was meant to formalise that space for debate. Its loss has returned us to political fragmentation.

Victoria and the long work of maturity

Against this bleak national picture, Victoria offers a partial — but important — counter example.

Victoria’s treaty and truth-telling processes did not emerge overnight. They followed years of groundwork: community consultation, institutional development, and sustained political commitment. The First Peoples’ Assembly was not imposed; it was built, slowly and imperfectly, through engagement and consent.

---

Read more:
Victoria’s groundbreaking treaty could reshape Australia’s relationship with First Peoples

---

This process has not been easy. There are disagreements within Indigenous communities and tensions with government.

But that is precisely the point. Political maturity is not the absence of conflict; it is the capacity to work through conflict without tearing institutions down at the first sign of strain.

Victoria has created political space where Aboriginal people can argue among ourselves, negotiate with government, and begin to develop a more stable relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous authority. It’s not a model that can simply be copied nationally. But it demonstrates what is possible when process is taken seriously.

Nationally, we have done the opposite. We rushed a referendum without adequate civic education, without genuine engagement of non-Indigenous Australians, and without listening to Aboriginal leadership when concerns were raised about timing and design.

So, what now?

The temptation after defeat is to retreat into anger, into denial, into purity politics. That temptation must be resisted.

The Voice is still needed. The underlying problem has not changed. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people remain locked out of meaningful participation in the decisions that shape our lives. Governments continue to manage symptoms rather than address structural causes. Closing the Gap reports record failure with increasing precision, but with diminishing impact.

We need to rebuild political space. That will take time. It will require discipline, humility and a willingness to stay in difficult conversations. It will require non-Indigenous Australians to accept that listening is not weakness, and Indigenous leaders to accept responsibility for process, not just protest.

It will require a political maturity that’s long alluded us. Growing up is the only way to meaningfully improve the lives of First Nations people.

Geoff Scott is the CEO of youth community organisation Just Reinvest. Geoff’s previous positions include: CEO of the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council; CEO of the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples; CEO of the NSW Aboriginal Land Council; Director General NSW Department of Aboriginal Affairs; and Deputy CEO Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Geoff was the Executive Officer to the Referendum Council during the Regional Dialogues and Constitutional Convention and was a key leader throughout the Uluru Dialogue process. He maintains an affiliation with UNSW Sydney.

– ref. The Voice campaign entrenched immature politics. We must do better for First Nations people – https://theconversation.com/the-voice-campaign-entrenched-immature-politics-we-must-do-better-for-first-nations-people-272267

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/06/the-voice-campaign-entrenched-immature-politics-we-must-do-better-for-first-nations-people-272267/

RNZ Pacific

The Green Party is celebrating the decision to decline plans to mine the Taranaki seabed.

In a draft decision on Thursday, the fast-track approvals panel declined Trans-Tasman Resources’ (TTR) bid to mine 50 million tonnes of seabed a year for 30 years in the South Taranaki Bight.

The panel found there would be a credible risk of harm to Māui dolphins, kororā/little penguin and fairy prion.

Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson said it was a huge win for the environment and the community.

“We’re absolutely delighted to see the proposal not backed. Even the government’s own panel have come out and said seabed mining has little regional or national benefit and that it would only benefit destructive corporations.

“It’s an incredible win for the environment, but massive props to the local campaigns, local community people, iwi, NGOs, researchers, scientists, fishers, just regular, ordinary people who care, who have said the same thing for many years and have fought hard and long.”

TTR have until February 19 to comment on the decision.

Putting profit before people
Davidson said the mining company would be putting profit before people and the environment if they tried to appeal it.

“How silly would they look. The message is already very clear. This is destructive, overrides local community voices and Te Tiriti, and it’s harmful and dangerous to our environment, which people actually care about.

“They have no support.”

She said the draft decision set a precedent and sent a message to the government that seabed mining was a “dumb idea”.

“Stop putting forward your stupid ideas.”

Davidson said if the government was relying on seabed mining as a way to grow the economy, they were “at a dead end”.

“It’s short-sighted, it’s stupid and it will not work.”

Trans-Tasman Resources said it would now consider its next options.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/06/green-party-celebrates-decision-to-decline-dead-end-taranaki-seabed-mining/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Symons, Director of Research and Innovation, School of International Studies, Macquarie University

In the 1960s, major oil-producing nations formed a cartel to drive up the price of oil. It worked. For decades, nations in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) have agreed to manage supply and raise prices.

Economists have long recognised cartel market power can bring accidental environmental benefits. By driving up prices, demand for polluting products drops. One recent analysis found OPEC’s actions had avoided 67 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions between 1971 and 2021 – equivalent to around three years of global oil consumption.

There’s no OPEC for thermal coal. However, Australia and Indonesia together account for around two thirds of seaborne thermal coal exports. If these two nations began acting in tandem to end the approval of new mines, falling future supply would gradually increase prices.

Our recent research points out that a formal treaty to phase out new thermal coal mine approvals would not only bring climate benefits, but could also benefit national budgets, state royalties and regional jobs.

What we’re proposing blends climate action and self-interest. If restricting coal supply boosted prices, producer states would benefit from increased royalties. Owners and workers at existing mines would benefit from stabilising prices. Finally, the green energy transition would be protected from being undermined by a race to consume ultra-cheap coal.

In the 1970s, OPEC’s engineering of higher oil prices drove a shift to more fuel-efficient cars and triggered intense interest in alternative energy sources such as solar. In our time, solar, wind and energy storage have come of age. A treaty to end new coal mines would make the shift even more appealing.

What would this look like?

If Australia, Indonesia and others formed a new “Organisation for Coal Transition”, the environmental motivation wouldn’t be the only difference with OPEC. For a start, a much high share of oil is traded internationally than coal, as more countries have their own coal supplies.

But major coal importers such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan now depend on seaborne coal. These nations are committed to accelerating climate action overall and have shown signs of structural demand decline already. Stronger coal prices would spur on the change.

The limited number of major coal exporters also creates potential for cooperation. In 2024, Indonesia controlled almost half of global exports, while Australia’s share was nearly 20%. Projections. If South Africa and Colombia joined a treaty alongside Australia and Indonesia, they would together account for 80% of seaborne exports.

What’s more, a thermal coal export treaty would not be easy to undermine. It takes years to get new mines producing, and deepwater ports able to take coal carriers are limited.

Coal importers could reinforce this treaty, pledging to buy from treaty members alone. Japan and South Korea (which account for 20% of global coal imports) are both seeking a predictable energy transition. These countries have shown willingness to pay a green premium and are investors in existing mines.

Australia has no exit strategy

Despite efforts to close domestic coal plants, Australian policymakers have done nothing to limit coal mining and exports.

New South Wales and Queensland state governments still benefit significantly through royalties and regional jobs. Australia’s coal exports, mine expansion approvals and new applications show little sign of slowing.

This is an increasingly risky strategy. With profit margins falling from recent highs and shifting demand in key markets, the thermal coal industry risks a chaotic future for mining towns.

While policymakers are beginning to focus on transition challenges for a small number of coal mines slated to close, they have largely avoided active intervention. After the NSW Productivity Commission and Net Zero Commission recommended limiting new coal mine approvals, Premier Chris Minns described the idea as “irresponsible”.

A ban backed by industry?

For operators of existing mines, agreeing to limit expansion opportunities is a challenging proposition. But the longer-term benefits would be much clearer if it was coordinated with international competitors and supported by buyers.

The coal export sector is showing signs of shifting to a buyers’ market, as long-term demand plateaus and then declines. This puts exporters such as Australia, Colombia, Indonesia and South Africa at a clear disadvantage.

We’ve already seen the fallout of coal’s market-driven decline in the United States’ Appalachian region Repeating the same mistake would undermine regional communities.

If, however, the shift was well managed, it would be a crucial step towards a coordinated just transition.

Japanese, Chinese, South Korean, Indian and Singaporean firms hold major stakes in Australian and Indonesian coal projects. These investors would benefit if existing assets are safeguarded from oversupply. These same investors would likely rally against more forceful interventions to close existing mines or raise mining taxes.

Climate action for pragmatists

Thermal coal is still mined in almost 60 countries. But only 11 have new mines seeking approval. At the same time, key international importers such as China, India, the European Union, Japan and South Korea are actively aiming to cut coal imports. A no-new-mines treaty would meet countries where they are.

What we are proposing is a pragmatic way to advance climate action. Rather than shuttering existing mines and risking blowback, the treaty and its cartel logic would align Australia’s economic self-interest and its climate goals.

At the United Nations climate talks last year, federal Minister for Climate and Energy Chris Bowen supported efforts to map a fossil fuel phase-out. To date, there’s no clarity on how Australia, a fossil fuel export giant, could do that.

Firmly closing the door to new mines alongside other exporters could offer a way to do this while giving policymakers agency.

The approach we’re proposing wouldn’t end coal use. But it would solve several problems at a stroke – and take a big step forward in the energy transition.

Jonathan Symons is an ordinary member of WePlanet NGO.

Chris Wright is the Principal Analyst at CarbonBridge, a small consulting group aiming to bridge critical decarbonisation challenges. He has been involved in work around the UN climate negotiations for over a decade.

– ref. If Australia and Indonesia agreed to end new thermal coal mines, it could drive the green transition. – https://theconversation.com/if-australia-and-indonesia-agreed-to-end-new-thermal-coal-mines-it-could-drive-the-green-transition-271309

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/06/if-australia-and-indonesia-agreed-to-end-new-thermal-coal-mines-it-could-drive-the-green-transition-271309/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Helen Dickinson, Professor, Public Service Research, UNSW Sydney

Thriving Kids is back in the spotlight, after the states and territories agreed last week to match the federal government’s A$2 billion dollar investment.

The new national program is targeted at children aged 0-8 with developmental delay and/or autism with low to moderate support needs. Under the proposal, many children currently supported through the NDIS would instead access assistance through this new “foundational supports” program.

But Thriving Kids has been clouded by uncertainty since its surprise announcement last August.

Nearly 500 submissions to a senate inquiry showed many families, advocates and service providers are anxious about the lack of clarity and fear kids could miss out on essential support.

On Tuesday, the government released a report that finally provides more detail.

This is welcome news. But important questions remain about how Thriving Kids will be rolled out, who for, and how the government will measure whether it’s working.

The new detail we have about Thriving Kids

In last week’s deal, the Commonwealth agreed to a delay, pushing back the start date to October.

Changes to NDIS access will not take effect until January 2028, allowing more time for service transition, workforce development and quality assurance.

The long-awaited report from the Thriving Kids Advisory Group has also set out guiding principles and key design features.

Thriving Kids will deliver a mix of universal supports – such as advice and skill-building for families – and targeted supports, “delivered where children live, learn and play”.

Precisely how these will be rolled out depends on each state and territory’s approach and will vary, building on existing services.

Targeted supports could involve group or one-on-one sessions with a specialist to work on particular skills (such as language or social interaction) and take place online or at home, school or childcare, depending on what the child and family needs.

There will be multiple pathways to get onto the program, such as referral from teachers, early childhood educators, and GPs. There will also be formal intake mechanisms but these are up to the states and territories to design.

Significantly, children will not need a formal diagnosis to receive support, removing a process that can be time-consuming, costly and inequitable.

Some children will likely still need a functional analysis of their support needs to access allied health professionals, such as occupational therapists, speech pathologists and physiotherapists.

Butler also indicated these targeted allied health supports would not involve gap fees – an issue that had raised concerns about access and equity.

---

Read more:
Occupational therapists tackle obstacles in the home, from support to cook a meal, to navigating public transport

---

Thriving Kids will include greater supports for parents. These aim to build self-advocacy skills, help them support their child’s development and navigate complex service systems.

The report also commits to evaluating the program. This means making sure public investment leads to meaningful improvements in children’s lives.

Importantly, children with significant and permanent disability will remain eligible for the NDIS, including those with developmental delay or autism.

What we still don’t know

Despite the additional information released this week, there are outstanding questions.

On Tuesday, Butler commented that “there was a life before the NDIS”, indicating a return to state-run service models for children.

Under Thriving Kids, families will not receive individualised budgets as they did under the NDIS, to purchase supports. Instead, children will access services commissioned and delivered by states and territories.

But this prospect may concern families who recall limited choice, long waiting lists and uneven quality prior to the establishment of the NDIS.

The report does not yet explain how Thriving Kids will avoid replicating these problems, particularly in areas where services are thin on the ground.

It does identify workplace development as critical, and there will be a focus on building disability capability across health services, early childhood education and care, and schools.

However, research consistently shows that workforce capability depends on more than individual skills. So training – while necessary – will not be enough by itself.

School leadership, staffing levels, time, resources and families’ capacity to navigate complex systems all shape whether inclusive practices are possible in practice.

Without addressing these factors, there is a risk responsibility will be shifted onto front-line workers without the conditions they need to succeed. These challenges are likely to be particularly acute in regional and rural areas.

What would make Thriving Kids successful?

In late 2025, we helped convene a policy forum involving 35 stakeholders from across education, health, early childhood and disability sectors to consider what would enable Thriving Kids to succeed.

This forum agreed that Thriving Kids must be holistic and universal, meaning it’s properly embedded wherever children live, play and learn. From the GP office to their school and beyond, there should be as few barriers to entry as possible.

It should be locally led, free of charge and neuro-affirming. This means there is recognition and support for the diverse ways people’s brains function – and this is valued as a strength, not a deficit.

Beyond these principles – which are shared by the Thriving Kids Advisory Group – success will depend on several practical commitments, ensuring:

• families, advocates and workers are involved in its design

• those working with children with disability are well-resourced and have the right skills, abilities and supports

• Thriving Kids and the NDIS work together, rather than operating as separate systems

• there are clear pathways for children to transition between services within Thriving Kids and, at age 9, into other supports or the NDIS, and

• funding is sustained to prevent geographic inequities.

Supports must be delivered in genuinely inclusive, mainstream settings. Otherwise, routinely withdrawing children from the places they live, play and learn for therapy risks reinforcing their exclusion, rather than participation.

The report’s guiding principles are encouraging. But whether Thriving Kids delivers meaningful change will hinge on the detail of its implementation.

Helen Dickinson receives funding from ARC, NHMRC, MRFF and Australian governments.

Molly Saunders does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. No diagnoses and no gap fees for physios and speechies. What else do we know about Thriving Kids? – https://theconversation.com/no-diagnoses-and-no-gap-fees-for-physios-and-speechies-what-else-do-we-know-about-thriving-kids-274951

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/06/no-diagnoses-and-no-gap-fees-for-physios-and-speechies-what-else-do-we-know-about-thriving-kids-274951/