Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To pick up on some of the comments that have been made, I appreciate that AI does not change rights and equality. What is changes is speed, scale, scope and sophistication in the transgression of those rights and the experience of discrimination across a population. Ms Keatinge mentioned the Dutch example. That continues today, by the way. For the benefit of the committee, there are still bodies charged with the redress programme for those individuals who were so negatively impacted by it. Mr. Herrick mentioned that, as a legal practitioner, the identification or enforcement of rights - I cannot remember which word he used - is difficult in the context of AI. There is an issue in that the technology is so sophisticated and difficult that it is hard to understand how your own areas of expertise, legal or whatever it might be, intersect with it. The absolute foundation is governance. It is all about how to build safeguards and systems that ensure we are all safe. I agree that the EU is further ahead than America or China, but that is a very low bar. I have concerns and questions about the AI office. The UN Paris Principles could be a potential set of governing guidelines or principles to inform the establishment of that office. As a body, the commission is obviously informed by the UN Paris Principles. For the benefit of the committee, will the witnesses tell us how that impacts on the commission's operations and functions? To their knowledge, is there anything that would prevent the State from adopting those same principles in the establishment of the AI office?