Tom Clonan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for all of the information they have given us.

I do not know where to begin. When I was five, my parents gave me a toy gun and a cowboy hat for my birthday. One of the first things I did was to take out my mother's crystal glasses and put them on the sideboard along with the decanter. She asked me what I was doing and I told her I was going to drink some whiskey. I blame Sergio Leone and watching spaghetti westerns. I had internalised so much from visual culture. That was back in the 1970s. Funnily enough, in Catholic Ireland of the early 1970s, I did not take my role models from what I experienced in the here and now or the everyday. Rather, it was the hyperreality of what I consumed in the visual culture. We inhabit a visual culture right now in ways we have not previously. As homo sapiens, we are hardwired to respond to the visual. The print epoch seems to have been just a blip. We come from a culture that probably reifies the written word. This speaks to the power of what we consume and what children consume online. To that end, I wonder whether this is just a new technology. The dynamics appear broadly similar. The witnesses listed matters such as self-harm, suicide, sexual contact, anorexia, cybercrime and grooming. Was it ever thus? Dr. Ryan referred to the role of Meta in amplifying hate, such as in the context of Myanmar. Did the caricatures and stereotypes of Irish people as simian-like that were published in Punch magazine in the 19th century contribute to the neglect of the Irish people and what happened to them during the Famine? Is this just a new technology, with the associated moral panic, or is it an inflection point? Is it a complete game-changer with a horizon we cannot yet see or understand? That is my principal question.

I understand how compelling negative and hateful content is and how it generates traffic and keeps people occupied, along with the associated advertising and revenue. Ultimately, however, what is unethical becomes unsustainable. Meta or whoever will eventually get caught in a class action or it will become financially non-viable to do this. I agree that regulation is the way, along with intervention, and Ireland could play a leading role in that regard. If this is a game-changer or an inflection point, however, does AI have the potential to have moral agency? If so, do the witnesses believe it is ultimately on a benign trajectory or a malign one?

I was involved in the International Society for Military Ethics before I got elected. One of its main focuses was automated and autonomous weapons systems and trying to see over the horizon to the ultimate destination of autonomous weapons systems, which are AI. Most people do not believe they will ultimately be useful. Apart from being completely unethical and amoral, it does not serve a useful or sustainable purpose to have an autonomous weapons system. The argument will be made that there is more precision, accuracy and so on but really it just is not fit for purpose in the context of human beings in all their capricious and idiosyncratic ways of being. Aside from intervening where we can in terms of regulation and so on, is AI ultimately a malign, game-changing and unpredictable thing with its own moral agency? If it has its own moral agency, will it behave? Will it continue to facilitate harmful outcomes? I do not know if the witnesses have a view on that matter. It might sound like a naive question.

Finally, most of the recommender systems are programmed by people. It may be naive on my part but I suspect the tech bros - men and women - probably collaborate with them and extend a lot of deeply patriarchal ways of thinking, including everything from their crunch time concepts and so on. This relates to value alignment. Is AI deeply patriarchal and misogynistic? Does it target women and girls more than it targets men or are the outcomes equally harmful? My apologies for the broad and sweeping questions.