Mr. David Lee:

At least the EU AI Act is a start in that it is prescriptive in some of the activities that are seen as being at an unacceptable risk level, a number of which touch on the areas the Senator talked about. Regarding the safeguards individual organisations need to put in place, if we followed the methods and approaches we are seeing being adopted, you need to link the purpose for which you will use a technology with the technology. Having a view on the technology in the absence of the proposed purpose is a gap. What we are seeing organisations do and what we encourage them to do is assess the risk on a use-case by use-case basis. The risk is not just a cyber or technical risk but a risk to reputation, trust and workers’ rights, for example. Whether a worker is a white-collar worker, professional staff or so on, they all have the same concerns. I think I can speak to the other organisations here as well. We are not operating in a vacuum from the rest of the world. Our own colleagues have the same levels of apprehension with regard to what GenAI means for our roles. Deputy Bruton correctly said that some of the most impacted areas are our own industries. I do not refer back to the answer I gave to Deputy O’Reilly but I am encouraged by the fact the folks coming into our centres have at the forefront of their minds how to do this in a responsible way. They have worked hard to build their organisations, build trust with their employees and build reputations in the market. They want to ensure they take advantage of this because standing and back not engaging will just very rapidly result in a deterioration of their competitive position, which is good for nobody. They absolutely are doing it in a responsible way, which might mean they are being a little cautious with regard to the first steps and the pace of progression, but I think that is to put the right foundations in place so that when they do engage, it will be in a more thoughtful and sustainable way for the organisations.