Dr. Kris Shrishak:

I thank the committee for having me here. As Mr. O'Brien mentioned, the first thing I will touch on is the State's responsibility in the use of AI in public services. The State should take responsibility in how it decides to use AI or algorithmic systems. The guidelines that were discussed last week and also by the previous panel of witnesses about the responsible use of artificial intelligence in the public service, for instance, advise against incorporating generative AI in public services without an approved business case. What happens, however, when a business case is approved, whether for generative AI or for other kinds of AI systems? How is the public informed when and how algorithmic systems are used and in which public services?

Last week, Senator Ruane mentioned in this committee that the Department of Justice is using a chatbot called Tara. The Department has a disclaimer that it cannot guarantee accuracy and that it cannot take responsibility related to this chatbot. In addition to the Tara chatbot the Department of Justice also ran the Erin chatbot targeting asylum seekers, which the Dublin InQuirer has reported on previously. Currently, the Department also runs another chatbot using Microsoft Copilot, assisted by a vendor whose name itself the Department tells me is commercially sensitive. Through a freedom of information request we have learned that the Department did not run a tender process, nor did it have any risk assessments, bias tests or environmental impact assessments for any of these. Chatbots are only one example of algorithmic systems or AI systems. We do not know how many other AI systems and algorithmic systems are in production, not just in pilots, and we do not know what kinds of these systems are being used in public bodies.

What should the State do? First, the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation should provide clear guidelines, not only on the use but also on the procurement of AI systems and services. It can take inspiration from the guidance provided by the Biden Administration last year in the United States. The State should establish a publicly accessible central register for all algorithmic systems used by public bodies. This is essential for the transparency of the algorithmic systems used at various levels of government. People have a right to know. The national algorithms register in the Netherlands, while not perfect, is the best example currently of such a register.

Second, as committee members are aware, the State has announced the national AI office, designated 15 AI regulators - let us call them a market surveillance authority or a national competent authority - and nine fundamental rights bodies. None of them, however, have been empowered. For that, the State needs to pass a national Bill, which we await.

In this context I will list four actions that would be important for this committee. The national AI office will be Ireland’s single point of contact under Article 70 of the EU AI Act. The State has informed the European Commission that this office will be within Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment. However, the committee should press for this AI office to be independent, with a dedicated budget and commissioner, with adequate technical and legal expertise employed to support itself, but also in its capacity as a co-ordinator of enforcement actions to support other regulators and fundamental rights bodies. Like the Data Protection Commission, it should not be housed within any Government Department.

There is a huge dearth of AI expertise among the nine fundamental rights bodies, as mentioned earlier. There is no indication of additional funding to fill this gap, which is deeply worrying. This committee should urge the State to provide these fundamental rights bodies with human, technical and financial resources as, otherwise, they cannot fulfil their mandate. I would be happy to elaborate later as to why this is important.

We recommend that various groups, including the ones previously invited to appear before this committee, artists, teachers and others affected by AI systems who are at the receiving end of AI deployment, are brought together in the form of an advisory group to not just help legislators, such as the committee members, but actually help the AI regulators and give them insights about on-the-ground AI harms and incidents. We recommend that such an advisory group be mentioned in the Bill and established as soon as possible.

I emphasise that existing laws such as the GDPR, various equality laws, copyright law and others already apply to AI. We are not starting from a blank sheet when it comes to the AI Bill. In addition, the committee should be aware of the product liability directive, which is in force in the EU and which Ireland must transpose by 9 December 2026. This directive will allow people who suffer damages due to products, including AI systems, to hold AI operators liable and claim compensation.

Let me sum up by stating what should be obvious to this committee: using the false dichotomy of innovation versus regulation serves the vested interests of billionaires and is a political decision. Driving forward innovation that protects the rights of the more than 5 million people in Ireland is also a political decision, one that should be made by this Oireachtas for the good of the people, not a handful of billionaires.

I look forward to members' questions.