Jakarta, INTI - Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a technology of the future. It has become part of everyday life. People use AI to search for information, write content, generate images and videos, translate languages, assist with work, learn, analyze data, and even support decision-making. Governments are also increasingly viewing AI as an important tool for improving productivity, public services, healthcare, education, and economic development. In September 2026, the Indonesian government further emphasized the concept of Meaningful AI, AI designed to deliver tangible benefits to society.

However, as AI adoption expands, so does the potential for misuse. The key question is no longer whether Indonesia needs AI governance, but rather how quickly and comprehensively such governance should be developed.

AI can generate false information that is increasingly difficult to distinguish from reality. Deepfake technology can manipulate a person’s face and voice, while AI can also be exploited for fraud, information manipulation, document forgery, identity theft, privacy violations, non-consensual sexual content, public opinion manipulation, cyberattacks, and other forms of emerging crime that existing laws may not fully address.

The issue becomes more complex because AI relies heavily on data. The greater the amount of data available, the more capable AI systems can become in generating predictions and decisions. As a result, AI is not merely a technological issue, it is also a matter of data control, privacy, accountability, security, and citizens’ rights. The Indonesian government has emphasized that personal data protection is an important component of AI governance, with Indonesia already having Law No. 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection.

This raises another important question: Does Indonesia need a dedicated AI law?

The answer is not straightforward. Introducing a new law does not automatically solve the problem. Regulations that are developed too quickly, become overly detailed, or lack flexibility could instead hinder innovation. AI is evolving far faster than the legislative process. Technologies considered cutting-edge today can change within months.

Therefore, AI regulation should not focus solely on currently popular technologies, but rather on principles, risks, accountability, and the protection of public interests.

Indonesia Moves Toward a Gradual AI Governance Framework

The Indonesian government appears to recognize this challenge. In 2026, the government completed discussions on a draft Presidential Regulation on AI Ethics and the National AI Roadmap 2026–2029. The government has also indicated that the Presidential Regulation will serve as an initial step toward developing a more comprehensive AI law.

This phased approach has an important policy rationale. Governments do not necessarily have to choose between “unrestricted AI” and “banning AI.” Instead, what is needed is risk-based governance.

AI used to assist with a simple design task, for example, should not be regulated in the same way as AI used to assess creditworthiness, support medical diagnoses, recruit employees, enforce laws, make educational decisions, or deliver public services.

The greater the potential impact of an AI system on people’s lives, the stronger the requirements should be for transparency, human oversight, auditing, and accountability.

Accountability and Human Oversight

If Indonesia eventually introduces a dedicated AI law, its scope should go beyond simply establishing prohibitions. The legislation should address several fundamental questions: Who is responsible when an AI-generated decision causes harm? Who is accountable if training data is obtained unlawfully? How can citizens challenge decisions made or assisted by AI? When should the use of AI be disclosed to the public? How should synthetic content and deepfakes be identified? What mechanisms should be used to audit high-risk AI systems? And how can human control be maintained over decisions with significant consequences?

Accountability becomes increasingly important as AI moves beyond simply providing answers toward systems capable of planning and carrying out actions with greater autonomy. The government itself has acknowledged a new challenge: when AI takes an action and that action is wrong, who should be held responsible?

This is where the principle of human oversight becomes essential. AI cannot become a justification for people to abandon responsibility. “The AI said so” should not allow public officials, companies, doctors, banks, schools, or other institutions to avoid accountability.

AI should support decision-making, not replace human responsibility.

This principle is consistent with UNESCO’s recommendations, which identify human dignity, human rights, transparency, fairness, privacy, security, accountability, and human oversight as important principles for AI governance. UNESCO also emphasizes the need for adaptive regulation and collaboration among multiple stakeholders.

Indonesia’s need, therefore, is not simply an “AI misuse prevention law,” but a broader AI governance ecosystem. A dedicated AI law could become one component, while sector-specific regulations, personal data protection, criminal and civil law, consumer protection, cybersecurity rules, and regulations governing electronic system providers would continue to play important roles.

Building Institutional Capacity and AI Literacy

Institutional capacity is another critical consideration. Who should be the primary AI regulator? Who should conduct audits? Who should handle public complaints? Who should investigate cases in which AI causes harm? Should Indonesia establish a dedicated institution, or would stronger coordination among existing agencies be sufficient?

Without effective oversight capacity, even well-designed legislation could become a strong normative framework with limited practical enforcement.

AI literacy is equally important. AI misuse does not always occur because of the technology itself, but also because users may not understand its limitations, risks, and consequences. Public education on information verification, privacy, cybersecurity, copyright, deepfakes, and responsible AI use should therefore advance alongside regulation.

Indonesia must also ensure that regulation does not create unnecessary fear of innovation. AI has significant potential to increase national productivity. Excessively restrictive rules could impose high compliance costs on startups and researchers. On the other hand, overly weak regulation could expose society to much greater social risks.

The fundamental principle should therefore not be “regulate as much as possible,” but rather “regulate enough to protect people while enabling innovation.” The government has also stated that AI regulation should not be developed reactively, given the rapid evolution of the technology and its applications across different sectors.

Balancing Innovation, Security and Public Interest

Ultimately, Indonesia needs to prepare for a dedicated AI law. However, its urgency should be considered within a broader objective: building AI governance that is safe, transparent, accountable, adaptive, and human-centered.

The biggest challenge is not simply preventing AI from being misused. It is also ensuring that people do not misuse AI, while the state does not use “AI safety” as a justification to unnecessarily restrict innovation or citizens’ rights.

AI should remain a tool for empowering people, rather than an instrument for replacing human responsibility. The success of AI regulation should therefore not be measured by the number of prohibitions it introduces, but by its ability to balance innovation, security, freedom, privacy, and the public interest.

If Indonesia aims to become a developed nation by 2045, technological mastery of AI alone will not be enough. Indonesia must also master AI governance.

Ultimately, the future of AI will not be determined solely by how intelligent machines become, but by how wisely people choose to use them.

Conclusion 

Indonesia’s growing AI adoption highlights the need for a governance framework that can balance innovation, security, privacy, accountability, and public interest. Rather than focusing solely on preventing misuse, future AI regulation should ensure responsible development while preserving human oversight and creating space for innovation.

Read more: Analyst: Indonesia’s AI Strategy Is Aligned with Global Developments