Artificial intelligence has made particular strides and jumps. It is in a place where we never anticipated being, if we are talking about two years ago. What we see across the board in the amendments is that they are about ensuring we have an AI office which has the capacity to be able to deliver whatever delivery looks like. A number of people, including Deputy Conway-Walsh, have said we need a huge level of skill sets. Obviously that includes technical skills, but skills are needed beyond that because artificial intelligence will cross every boundary we can possibly think of. The question around an element of independence is obviously vital, given the history we have with regulation in this State if we think back to the financial crisis, which Deputy Murphy and others have spoken about. I also highlight the other aspect of the issue. We have seen in the public domain that the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy Lawless, had a roundtable meeting with Meta, OpenAI, Microsoft and a number of others. I think everyone welcomes the fact that conversations are ongoing with stakeholders, but we would also like to think that there will be an element of independence and that we will make determinations on what is best for Ireland, for the Irish people and more widely beyond that. Nearly every time we speak about artificial intelligence, we talk about the dangers of job displacement, which we have seen recently. Covalen is an example. We have also seen it in the case of PayPal. As much as the Minister of State will get official denials in this regard, I think it is fairly straightforward. That is not taking away from the huge room for innovation that exists. It is not taking away from the huge realities of how this can have a positive impact on healthcare in everything from diagnostics to organisation. It is vital that we have a system, a framework and an AI office that can drive this on and is able to deal with all of this. It is going to be difficult to deal with the whole issue of regulation and the fact that we want to see maximum utilisation in relation to artificial intelligence. Unfortunately, we have all seen Donald Trump's attempts to curtail technologies within the American sphere that he might not want to necessarily share out without a huge price to be paid, which we may not be willing to pay. We are in the early days. We are talking about a technology that is going to move on. It is making sure we also have capacity in that. We are discussing with stakeholders and big tech, some of whom have the ear of the American President and not necessarily in a positive way. I heard the timeline they are looking for will be much faster than what had been planned by the State. I ask that the Government does do everything it can to ensure that it has the best framework for delivering, notwithstanding there will be multiple changes because we can come up with any plan we like but it will change because this is a vastly evolving technology, which will encompass almost every facet of life. That means it is really important that we ensure we play our part in relation to regulation and seeing those dangers. We have seen the dangers related to social media companies in the recent past. This is about stating the protections we want to see, combined with the capacity, are contained in the AI office. I would also add my voice to what many others have said. As much as we want to see strategies and a framework put in place quickly, nobody appreciates the rushed nature of legislation and the way that a number of Bills have been dealt with recently in this House.

Sentiment score: 0.19

We are all aware of the huge dangers, which I will reiterate. The big one at the minute is the number of people who are worried – not from a technical point of view – about losing their job. If we are talking about an AI office, we must ensure there is significant capacity and that it engages with the State and all of its agencies from the point of view of fostering the skill sets that are required to ensure we can deliver AI solutions to improve workplaces and innovation within companies and everywhere else. A number of the amendments relate to this. We must make sure that we have an overall eye on the development of artificial intelligence and its dangers. We have seen issues with Grok, etc. We do not know where the new-found dangers will be. The fact is that we are talking about a huge amount of information and how it is taken from those who provide it, whether willingly and knowingly, and then how it is utilised. That is why it is absolutely vital that we have a framework that is ethical and responsible. I have not heard anyone speak against that. We hardly want it not to be ethical and to be irresponsible. We all recognise and have spoken about where there are obvious wins from the point of view of artificial intelligence for companies. As much as there are dangers within education, huge wins are obviously possible. It is about ensuring that the AI office has capacity for a framework to provide training, due diligence and instruction where necessary. It might not necessarily be through the AI office. The Acting Chair, Deputy McGreehan, and I spoke before about the use of the likes of Skillnet. We know that this has to be something that is delivered across all the local enterprise offices, LEOs, Enterprise Ireland and the IDA. It is about ensuring that the capacity, ambition and remit is there within the AI office and that we make sure that those within the AI office, as the previous set of amendments proposed, have the skill sets and capacity. In some respects we have had very little conversation. There has been talk about the need for the AI office to be up and running and the fact that primary legislation is needed, including to deal with issues that might not necessarily be addressed here and now, but I have heard little in relation to the AI strategy, how we develop that, and what sort of timeline we are talking about. I am going to return to the meeting with OpenAI, Microsoft, Meta and Dell. I assume there were many others there. We definitely do not want a scenario and situation where we are being directed by them. I do not think people will give out about the fact that there is a conversation but I assume it is also about making sure there is transparency in relation to that and what we are proposing around the timeline for the AI strategy. I accept that no strategy that we put in play is going to remain static right through. I am interested in seeing that. I get that, to a degree, we are all talking in generalities because even when we talk specifically to amendments I am fairly sure that we are not going to see any amendments accepted. Could we have some indication of the trajectory of what is being sought by the amendments as regards an ethical and responsible framework, ensuring that the capacity is there within the AI office, that there is a sufficient amount of independence and that we can deliver a strategy that works? We all know the necessity of a feedback loop and the constant change that will occur. While there may be engagement with the likes of the companies the Minister of State met, we must not be directed by them. That piece is vital.

Sentiment score: 0.23