Seòmar agus comataidhean

Do you have anything to add to that, Leo?

I do not want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that, in that carrot situation, the decisions that the likes of Scottish Enterprise or the Scottish National Investment Bank make about helping out new players in the game should have an ethical basis built in before any investment comes into play? Is that what you are suggesting?

Would you agree with that, Leo?

Good morning. This is the third week of our AI investigation and, I must be honest, there have been ups and downs in the evidence that we have heard. There may be huge positives and benefits from the AI revolution but, at the same time, we have heard that there are a lot of worries. I am sitting here thinking about what the masses of people at home who are watching this committee will be thinking. I am being quite sarcastic in saying “masses”, but these things create worries. We have heard about fully automated industries, and billion-dollar companies run by one person. We have heard about all the changes that could take place because of AI and that may make people redundant—some would say in more ways than one. What are the positives for those folk who may be sitting at home thinking, “Where do I fit into all this?”

I will return to your earlier important point about the one-person, billion-dollar company. We already have on the planet billion-dollar—trillion-dollar—companies that are at the forefront of all of this. Some would argue that they are not ethical now because they do not pay the taxes that some of us believe that they should. You talked earlier about curing cancer and the possibility of new treatments coming into play, and we can already see the huge differences in terms of early diagnosis by AI applications. You asked, however, who those treatments would be available to. Will they be available only to the elites who run the big companies or will they be available to everyone? Those are the questions that we need to answer in order to deal with the pessimism about where this may leave a lot of folk out there.

We will wait and see whether we have those breakthroughs. Dex, could you also answer that question and maybe go a little bit further? We have had a discussion about the guardrails, the safeguards and what we need to do there but, as has been discussed, what is really required is an international framework agreement, which I think may be unlikely or very difficult to reach. How do we persuade the elites who are in control that an international framework is the right thing for all of us, and also for them, to follow?

Perhaps a computing science degree with philosophy is the way forward for all this.

Thanks for coming today. Convener, I should say that I have met with Steve previously for some good conversation.

I will stick with the ethics aspect. We have heard from others today about who is doing well. Leo Fakhrul, you mentioned the fact that Singapore is driving things forward but with limits. We are operating in a global context here. What we require for governance is an international framework, which may not be seen as beneficial to some of the elites out there. Is such a framework required for us to have the right governance here and to continue the trust that there obviously is in Scotland’s businesses?

I think that you talked earlier about AI-induced chaos. I am playing devil’s advocate here, because we have to in some regards. Earlier, you held up your smartphone; Dex also asked what we have done with that technology and whether it has been beneficial. I think that we may all agree that we have more communication, but is it meaningful communication? In terms of using AI, by means of which we can get more done, how do we ensure that what we do is meaningful? For example, probably every single one of us around this table is receiving a lot more mass communication that has been produced by AI. The temptation is, of course, to respond by using AI, which is not my bag, I have to say, at this time. I am not sure that some of that communication is as meaningful as it should be. We could see a situation where there is lots more communication, but would it be worthwhile, meaningful and make a difference to our society? How do we get around some of those things so that we do not get to the AI-induced chaos that you talked about?

The convener is desperate for me to finish, because we are running out of time. I have one final question. We have talked about the Scotlands, the Estonias and the South Koreas of this world, but the drivers of all of this—the elites, if you like—are mainly American tech companies. America is not a nation that is renowned for creating good regulation, and it could be said of the current regime in the United States that that is even less so. How do we persuade those giants, or the elites, that an international framework is also the right way forward for them?

Thank you. My final question will be brief, convener. Does there need to be holistic resilience investment in resources for infrastructure, so that we do not do something in one area that might have a major impact on others downstream—for example, flood prevention measures?