A$20 Million Gambling Education Bid Accused of Being ‘AI Slop’

The issue came to light after The Guardian revealed that the evidence review used to support the bid contained numerous incorrect or nonexistent citations, including references to studies that could not be located and claims that were not supported by the sources listed.

Independent Senator David Pocock described the document as “AI slop,” saying it appears to include fake references and exaggerated conclusions presented as facts – something AI tools are known to do.

The review was presented to politicians and policymakers as part of a push for A$20 million in funding, arguing that school-based education is a key solution to youth gambling-related harm.

However, when examined more closely, some claims of the bid conflicted with past findings from the Productivity Commission, which has previously said education programs are far less effective than stronger gambling rules.

The funding submission was linked to the OurFutures Institute, which is affiliated with the University of Sydney and promotes itself as a leader in gambling harm prevention. However, critics argue that the bid’s credibility is undermined not only by the poor quality of the evidence review but also by long-standing concerns about industry ties in gambling research.

Public records have shown that several academics associated with gambling research at the University of Sydney have received funding from gambling operators and industry bodies. While such relationships are not illegal, they have further fuelled the widespread criticism that some research centres that focus on “harm minimisation” strategies, such as education programmes, are not the most effective. Instead, they’re well-funded and industry-friendly.

According to critics, these costly education programs often shift the responsibility onto individuals, particularly young people, rather than on advertising practices, product design, and availability.

The education bid was presented as urgent and evidence-based, yet the supporting material failed basic fact-checking standards. For some, this suggests the goal may have been to secure funding first and justify it later, rather than build an anti-gambling programme based on solid research.

Several experts cited in the review have since distanced themselves from it, saying papers attributed to them either did not exist or were misrepresented. This has further damaged confidence in the proposal and other similar proposals, and raised doubts about how carefully the submission was prepared.

If protecting young Australians from gambling harm was truly the priority, the focus would be on proven strategies, such as advertising restrictions, product design rules, and tighter controls on access, rather than an A$20 million education program with shaky evidence behind it.

The controversy has also put a spotlight on how AI tools are increasingly being used in policy lobbying and research. While AI can help with drafting and summarising, the problem is that it can just as easily produce confident-sounding content that isn’t properly checked, including incorrect references and claims that don’t hold up.

In this case, the institute behind the funding bid admitted there were errors in the evidence review and blamed problems with reference handling, promising to fix the document. That explanation isn’t good enough, especially for critics who are asking how a report with such obvious flaws was used to support a $20 million funding request in the first place.

Senator David Pocock and others have called for tighter standards around the evidence used to justify public spending, especially when it involves gambling harm and young people. Their view is simple: public money shouldn’t be handed out based on reports that fall apart under basic scrutiny.

The federal government has not yet said whether it will move ahead with the funding proposal, but the whole situation has further fuelled the doubts about how gambling-related programs are presented in Canberra and how little is done to actually battle gambling harm.