Compliance
Meeting regulatory requirements and industry standards for AI systems
Hero Post
By Adesh Gairola
NPC Nation: what Australia's new AI framework actually covers
The 15 July framework binds data centres: where they sit, what power and water they draw, what they pay for the grid, plus training on Australian creative work. It puts no new obligation on anyone building with models. What already binds you is the law you have: consumer law, APRA, ASIC, the Privacy Act. Neither document says who gets to say no.
Featured Posts
By Adesh Gairola
Claude Tag: an agent that acts as itself, not on your behalf
Claude Tag puts @Claude in Slack as its own per-channel service account, not on behalf of the person who asked. That breaks the delegation model everyone converged on, where the audit log can still name a human. Useful, but it revives the old service-account problems with an AI on top.
By Adesh Gairola
Agent identity isn't solved. Here's the model I use anyway.
Agent identity makes more sense as four stacked layers: a tamper-proof token format, cryptographic proof of which workload is running, a delegation chain that keeps the human as the subject, and a way to onboard to a service an agent has never met. Climb all four and you've proven who the agent is. You still haven't proven that what it did was okay.
By Adesh Gairola
Three Regulatory Philosophies, One Global AI Market
The EU (9/10 risk), US (5/10), and Australia (6/10) take vastly different approaches to AI regulation. Build for EU standards globally—the Brussels Effect means you'll need them anyway.
