Chamber and committees

That is a brilliant question, but it would take me a considerable time to answer it in any way effectively. My question, “Whose ethics are they anyway?” recognises that “we” means whoever we choose to congregate with. We think that we all believe the same thing but, when we look at different societies and countries, we see that people believe different things. When I asked, “Whose ethics are they anyway?”, I was asking about the custodians of ethics. At its heart, that is a fundamental problem. Notwithstanding that, we all have a role. The best point that the member makes is that we must all take an interest and must do so at every level of society, from the individual upwards.

One final concern for us all, which was also noted by the Scottish Futures Forum, is the challenge of scrutiny for legislatures. I was pleased to contribute to the toolkit developed by Robbie Scarff, but we must not underestimate the challenge ahead. How on earth are we going to be able to do that scrutiny? We do not understand AI and we do not know how it hangs together, so how on earth can we scrutinise it?

I, too, feel a sense of urgency. States across the world must act more quickly. Like everyone else, I note the concerns expressed this week by the so-called godfathers of AI—although, of course, I feel obliged to ask where the godmothers are. Their concerns cannot be ignored, which should add to everyone’s sense of urgency. We know that we cannot abandon AI. We can cautiously celebrate it and power up the work that will be required to harness it for the benefit of womankind, mankind and our earth.

I have one final thought. What might AI mean for us as human beings? As the next stage in hybrid intelligence emerges, AI should remain as a servant to us and to our conscious choices. To what extent might AI become sentient? Perhaps its capacity to model sentience will become superlative and will lead to better versions of humanity, but we must remember that it is the flaws that we all have that make us human. I hope that that will keep us in the driving seat.

I thank my friend and colleague Audrey Nicoll for bringing this important debate to the chamber and for speaking so eloquently on the matter.

I was an early adopter of technology. Having done a degree in music in the early 1980s, it quickly became apparent to me that technology had pervaded even the world of crotchets and quavers. I found myself composing music for a repertory company using early versions of synthesisers and samplers, which ultimately led me to a postgraduate diploma in information technology. However, IT held no interest for me at school; the computer room was full of boys speaking an incomprehensible language. At that point, I could not discern the purpose of and potential in IT. Seeing its application in music, however, changed my perception, so I ended up spending time as a computer programmer, systems analyst and project manager.

Ironically, the skills that were required in many STEM subjects were similar to those that I needed for music—problem solving, communication, creativity, critical thinking and data analysis. Anybody who has had to interrogate and analyse a complex piece of music, such as pieces by Bach, will understand what I am talking about.

Improving the gender balance of STEM subjects in Scotland has been an on-going task all my life. Looking back to 2015, when I was first elected as an MP, Skills Development Scotland, in conjunction with the Institute of Physics and Education Scotland, introduced a project entitled “Improving gender balance Scotland”. Eight years on, the gender gap across STEM subjects is, regrettably, still evident. In 2021, STEM Women noted that, across the UK, just 19 per cent of people who were enrolled in computer science-related subjects were female. Worse is that research suggests that, globally, just 3 per cent of students who are enrolled in information and communications technology courses are female.

My early years in IT were filled with young and ambitious women like me, but fast forward to today and we find that the sector has one of the lowest ratios of female to male employees of any STEM sector. Over the course of my IT career, I saw many senior roles being dominated by men.

The phenomenon—which has already been mentioned in the debate—of the so-called leaky pipeline still prevails, which proves that this is a complex systemic issue rather than it being the case that there are just a few drips and leaks, which is a kinder analogy. I am very wary of members’ distilling the issue down to the somewhat trite “SNP bad” argument because, for example, world and UK data demonstrate that 35 per cent of entrants to STEM higher education subjects are women, and data from the UK-wide Universities and Colleges Admissions Service shows that only 25 per cent of them graduate and only 30 per cent of that small number have sustained careers in their related subjects.

As young women start to make choices over future careers, perhaps some—arguably like the younger version of me—relate to the phrase, “If you can’t see it, you can’t be it.” The issues that limit women’s economic participation in society—the issues that we come up against time and again—including caring and childcare responsibilities, gender stereotypes, unconscious bias and lack of flexibility in roles can be compounded in STEM-related careers, in which, for example, short-term breaks have a disproportionate effect due to the speed of technological advancement.

The role of mentoring and network support for women such as that which is provided by Equate Scotland, which is mentioned in the motion, is therefore crucial. I commend its work and the support that is provided by the Scottish Government, but it is vital that more companies engage with such initiatives in order to bring about positive change that is led and supported by women themselves.

As Government wellbeing plans progress, we must focus a truly gendered lens on all policies. Schools, universities, colleges, business, industry and academia must all play their part, too.

The debate is already a fascinating one. In preparing for it, I, too, tried putting a question in ChatGPT—I asked, “Is Stephen Kerr MSP more effective than a potato?” I can confirm that it was not able to answer that question, so it still has some way to go.

Arguably, artificial intelligence is similar to quantum mechanics in that, if you claim that you understand it, you are merely proving that you do not. However, we know that it will change everything; on that, we all agree. Not one area of our lives or our societies will escape its pervasive influence. An accessible example is in the field of medicine, where we know that the computing power of AI to assess and find patterns in huge data sets will revolutionise pathology and, therefore, outcomes for some of the world’s most challenging diseases.

The concept of big data has been around for some time and the technology that allows for rapid processing has been developing at speed, but it is the complex algorithms in machine learning that have scaled up significantly and propelled the exponential potential of AI. Data must not be underestimated as a fundamental enabler. All public sector agencies and the Scottish Government will need to increase their understanding of the potential of public sector data as an enabler for the use of AI.

That issue is one that members of the Finance and Public Administration Committee have started to consider as part of our inquiry into public sector reform. The strategy that the Scottish Government developed in March 2021 and updated in August 2022 is a good start. It shows an appetite for support to be provided to the multitude of agencies that can help to promote the use of AI, and I am pleased to hear that the minister plans to look afresh at it.

I am grateful for the briefings that members have received for the debate. We have had some good input from the likes of Scotland’s Futures Forum and the University of Edinburgh. I think that we can all agree that our institutions are contributing to the growth of AI with the excellence for which Scotland is known.

The title of today’s debate specifically mentions inclusion, trust and ethics, so I would like to explore those issues a little more.

I turn first to inclusion. Members who know me well will have heard me speak often of how women as a sex class are often disproportionately affected in a multitude of ways in society. Earlier, I spoke in today’s members’ business debate about the underrepresentation of women in tech. AI represents a new frontier. The engineers who are developing the black-box algorithms are mostly men, and I fear that that will lead only to bias in the decision making of machine learning.

Recent estimates suggest that, globally, women make up 26 per cent of workers in data and AI roles, while in the UK that percentage drops to 22 per cent. That said, there is still a lack of data about the global AI workforce that uses any of the measures that we might look at, including age, race and geography. Nevertheless, I suggest that issues similar to those related to the underparticipation of women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics—such as high attrition rates, differing role types and lower status—will also come to bear in AI.

Willie Rennie mentioned the potential for job losses, which is another issue that we know will disproportionately impact women, given that many will be in retail and secretarial roles. What may not yet fully be appreciated is the extent to which AI will ultimately affect a multitude of professions, including the highly paid sectors dominated by men.

What shall we say about ethics? Whose ethics are they anyway, and who governs them? It is fair to say that Governments of all hues are behind the curve and still rely on the values and principles being developed by agencies such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

While researching for this debate, I was pleased to discover that the University of Edinburgh has conducted interdisciplinary research into the ethics of AI and has outlined five core themes: developing moral foundations for AI; anticipating and evaluating the risks and benefits; creating responsible innovation pathways; developing technologies that satisfy ethical requirements; and transforming the practice of AI research and innovation. However, I think that those themes will provide a focus not on end goal or consequentialist ethics, but rather on deontological ethics—that is, on creating frameworks and processes. We have some way to go.

I want to go back to cover one idea with David Page before we move on to look at some general themes.

Mr Page, you did not mention one area that is habitually difficult when making transformational change at scale: the merging of different cultures. People often carry out due diligence on legal or financial matters but forget about culture. You were, in essence, bringing lots of different cultures together. How did you actively manage that and what have been the outcomes?

I have a final wee question off the back of that. You pointed out that change was forced on you by the legislation. Had it not been, is there any way on God’s earth that all the different forces would have volunteered to come together?

It is just a quick question, because Keith Brown has opened up a great thread. We hear that there is a lot of good stuff going on, and a shared sense of what needs to be done. However, I want somebody to answer this question. What is the role of Government in enabling data harvest and capture—within limitations, as has been set out—given that AI will be fundamental to public sector reform? What should Government’s role be, given the challenges around scale that Keith Brown pointed out in his opening question?

As has been noted, the Scottish Government has to balance its budget every year, which leads to challenges with demand-led budgets, such as social security, in year. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of its ability to manage demand-led budgets, and what specific fiscal levers would the cabinet secretary ideally want to be able to use to make that job easier?

I apologise, Sue. That is why I was wondering why you were passing that question to David Eiser.

Good morning. What do you think is the first thing that I noticed about you when you first came into the room this morning?

Yes, you are all men. Off the back of that, I thought that I would just check how representative the organisation is. We can see that 20 per cent of the people here today are women—Susan Bomphray is online and has not had a chance to speak yet. I looked at the board, and I see that there is 25 per cent representation by women. Then I looked at the membership of the committees and saw that the risk and audit committee, which is the most active one, is 70 per cent men. Then I searched your strategy for the terms “sex”, “gender”, “women” and so on, and there was no mention of them. I also looked at your work plan, which has three mentions in passing. So my question is: are you completely or just mostly gender blind?