Dr. Dan McQuillan:

I thank the committee for the invitation to participate. AI is both a set of technologies, such as neural networks and transformer models, and a range of rhetorical claims. The technology and the claims are only loosely connected. I will argue that AI undermines the ideals of truth and democracy.

AI has an adversarial relation with the truth. As has been referred to, the core of its calculations are correlations not causal relations, so its outputs are plausible rather than factual. Google's Sundar Pichai was in the news this morning, backing me up on that point. I would describe AI’s pattern recognition as a form of computational conspiracy theory, and its outputs are disinformation even when they appear to be accurate. AI’s internal opacity and its inability to parse social complexity make it impossible to remove errors and bias. While a belief in AI’s superior powers persists, its claims to truth will retain authority while harming some of the most marginalised, which has also been mentioned. Even the engineers who build AI cannot explain what is going on inside to produce a particular result, so reliable regulation on that front is a non-starter. At the same time, the efforts to make AI more reliable actually make it more effective at selecting preferred versions of truth. The claims we hear that AI will solve everything from climate change to infectious disease deflect attention from the actual uncomfortable truths of our current moment. This hubris is driving an investment bubble, which Mr. Pichai also mentioned, that diverts vast sums from real social needs.

On democracy, it is increasingly clear that AI is precaritising rather than productive. It cannot really replace people but it can make their circumstances more vulnerable. AI is, in fact, extending forms of austerity prevalent since the crash of 2008 while preparing a new financial crash of its own. These conditions are corrosive to democracy. AI is also anti-democratic in terms of institutional and regulatory capture. We are currently seeing the EU walking back the flagship AI Act in the face of pressure from Trump and big tech. Peter Thiel, the founder of Palantir and patron of J.D. Vance, is currently on a lecture tour saying attempts to regulate AI are the work of the Antichrist. Meanwhile, the example of DOGE demonstrated AI’s effectiveness as a form of authoritarian cyberattack on centralised institutions. More broadly, AI is toxic to democracy via its impact on education and young people, as our colleague from the Electoral Commission will know. Large language models are sold as learning accelerators but actually substitute slop for critical thinking. Unfortunately, they are becoming young people's first port of call for everything from essays to relationship advice. In this context, AI undermines the replenishment of a citizenry with the capacity for independent thought. In its systemic effects, AI will fail to solve problems, cause collateral damage and benefit reactionary politics.

I have titled the next section of my submission "Recommendations", but these are really just tentative suggestions. I suggest that the committee avoid misleading responses to this state of affairs, such as the idea of AI sovereignty.

AI should be considered harmful to whatever polity is hosting it. I suggest that the committee should at least be clear with itself what it is endorsing when it endorses AI. At best, the alleged benefits to healthcare or education really amount to algorithmic Thatcherism. A more likely outcome is that widespread AI adoption will strengthen the far right. I encourage the committee to see AI as a symptom rather than a cause and to use it as a diagnostic for the underlying problems of a system that needs some restructuring for the benefit of people and planet. Having said that, AI is an actor in its own right and one that will intensify real world problems like energy costs, unemployment and militarisation. Therefore, I also encourage the committee to place worker and community collectives at the heart of decision-making about AI, with a clear power of veto. This should also apply to the expanding number and scale of energy-hungry and recolonising data centres. Decision-making around AI should prioritise alternative solutions that reduce the overall dependence on computation and elevate direct social relationships.

I thank the committee and I am happy to participate in questions and answers.