Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I read all of the opening statements in great detail. I thank the witnesses for coming in. This meeting feels like a bit of an exam. It is interesting that AI would have been a single topic many years ago but all of the witnesses have come at it from different angles. They have considered the creativity aspect, how to adjust for people's own writing styles and how teachers can tell if students are using AI or not. We are adults in the world and politicians. I never go anywhere without my phone. I am never in a situation in an exam where somebody is testing my knowledge to see how much is in my brain and whether I can get it out. What we in the world are doing is to see how we can use the tools around us to make society the best place it can be. The witnesses have talked about people's different leavening styles, which I had not thought about. That approach has helped in a classroom situation where students have more of a visual style rather than a written style. I had not considered that point.

Do they think it is more the case that education has to adapt to the reality of AI rather than the other way around? From many of their answers, it seems the education system is trying to control the space. The system is stating that it does not want students to do continuous assessment because we cannot trust them not to use AI. When we are in the world, everybody trusts us. LinkedIn asks users if they want something to be rewritten using AI. I have no idea, nor do I care, whether somebody's LinkedIn post is rewritten by AI. A person made the decision to do that in the first place and used a tool. Is it more the case that education has to change and accept reality rather than the students being put in a situation where they are not trusted and cannot go through a more mentorship-style approach with their teachers? That is a broad question but I would love to hear some thoughts on that.