Ms Caoilfhionn Gallagher:

First, I will not add to what others have said about Coimisiún na Meán. I made clear in my opening statement that I welcome the fact it is focusing on the issue of recommender algorithms and exploring that topic. When we hear back further from Coimisiún na Meán will be critical. Overall, a key thing is to comply with the UNICEF nine principles referred to by Professor O'Sullivan and me in our opening statements.

This is key. As Ms Cooney has just said, this involves matters like education and ultimately putting resources into these issues. The nine principles are key. This involves having a child-centred focus, not only at the stage of realising a particular product or AI system is causing a problem but also ensuring there is a child-centred focus right from the outset, from the design stage. The bottom line is that many of the problems we are talking about today involve AI systems and automated decision-making based on human-defined objectives, which have gone in at the outset and have not had a child focus. This is a fundamental problem if the human-defined objectives in a machine-learning system have not taken account of the different nature of children. Children are not mini-adults. They are fundamentally different, evolving beings who deserve and are entitled to be treated differently. One of the problems we have is that often we have the product, and then afterwards there comes the late-stage sticking-plaster approach. We actually need to have child-centred design right from the outset.

I agree entirely with the point made by Senator O'Sullivan about recognising the fear of AI. This is completely understandable because of the very serious issues we have been talking about concerning the pushy algorithm problem. It is also important to give thought to the fact that in many circumstances AI can be used in a positive way. As with the example of Milli the chatbot from Finland mentioned earlier, I draw attention to the fact that the UNICEF guide also refers to what I think is a very useful example called SomeBuddy in Finland and Sweden. This is a crime detector system that helps to support children and teenagers who potentially have experienced online harassment. It is a really good example of children having been involved right from the outset of the design and of there being checks and balances along the way.

When children report incidents such as cyberbullying, the system initially has an automatic filter to analyse the case using natural language processing. It prepares a first-aid kit, and then there is human input later. If we were to rely on human input alone, however, we would only be able to get to a very small number of children. It allows, therefore, a reach to a wider number of children. This is a good example, supported by UNICEF in Finland, of AI working well, with good child-centred design right from the outset and with checks and balances to ensure the system is working well and trying to pick up any false positives or negatives. This is in addition to the example of Milli the chatbot referred to earlier in respect of Helsinki University Hospital. We must remember the opportunities in this area as well as the risks when we are thinking about child-centred design.