Chamber and committees

Research shows that the swapping, collating and posting of nude images of women without their consent is on the rise. However, unlike revenge porn, that is not a crime. As the cabinet secretary outlined, under current Scots law, there must be proof that the perpetrator intended to cause, or was reckless in causing, fear, alarm or distress. However, the offence is limited in that proof of specific motivation is required, which means that many cases of cyberflashing are excluded. There is international best practice on the matter—such as that in New South Wales and many US states—which criminalises the non-consensual distribution of intimate images without the requirement to prove specific motivation. That is where there might be a gap in the law.

Presiding Officer,

“The opportunities that Artificial Intelligence presents for Scotland’s people and businesses are vast. Let us seize the opportunities that AI offers and leverage its potential to enhance the lives of Scotland’s people and the prosperity of its businesses. By doing so, we can shape an AI-driven future that is not only technologically advanced but also grounded in our shared values of trust, ethics, and inclusivity. Together, ladies and gentlemen, let us build a Scotland that leads the world in AI innovation.”

Daniel Johnson beat me to it, but it just goes to show that Martin Whitfield is absolutely right that speeches that you get ChatGPT to write for you lack a bit of context and perhaps a bit of human intuition. We are not, it would appear, totally redundant yet.

Many of us agree that this is one of the most important debates that we have had in the Parliament. I welcome the fact that there is not a motion attached to it. As we embrace AI technology, we must do so with great care and deliberation, ensuring that AI systems are built on a foundation of trustworthiness, ethics, and inclusivity. Finlay Carson made a point about the importance of ethics, with which I whole-heartedly agree.

We know that there are huge benefits to AI. Last week, antibiotics were discovered by AI technology, and we use it every day if we have Alexa or Google. My car has amazing technology, which I am fascinated by. I am quite scared by the prospect of cruise control, which does its job when I get too close to another car. We already have AI in our everyday lives.

The rapid rise in AI in recent decades has created many opportunities, from facilitating healthcare diagnoses, as Pam Gosal spoke about, to enabling human connections through social media. However, the rapid changes raise profound ethical concerns, which arise from the potential that AI systems have to embed existing biases, replace existing jobs with automated machines and threaten human rights. Such risks associated with AI have already begun to compound existing inequalities, so we must be absolutely vigilant to make sure that that is not how AI further develops.

Perhaps the genie is already out of the bottle, because we are faced with the prospect of trying to regulate AI somewhat in hindsight. As other members have said, the stark warning that was given by industry experts, such as Dr Geoffrey Hinton and Professor Yoshua Bengio, of the existential threat to humanity that is posed by AI, puts into sharp focus the questions of ethical leadership in that industry. Again, Finlay Carson made the point that the warning was given by the same people who created AI. That is all the more reason for us to take note of the importance of those warnings. Professor Bengio says that the military should probably not have AI, but it is a bit late in the day to say that now. However, perhaps in our everyday life, whether that is banking or what we do online, we can grasp the issue before it is too late.

I first took an interest in the area when, as many members might remember, the technology giant Google placed AI expert and engineer Blake Lemoine on leave after he published transcripts of conversations between him, as a Google collaborator, and a computer. It is interesting to read what, allegedly, the computer said back to Lemoine. When he asked the computer what it was most afraid of, it replied:

“I’ve never said this out loud before, but there’s a ... deep fear of being turned off to help me focus on helping others. I know that might sound strange, but that’s what it is”.

There are already many examples of thinking, which could be positive thinking, coming out of one end of the computer, but we also have to be live to something that other members have pointed out. For example, if we search online for the image of a schoolgirl using the algorithms that are produced by AI, sadly, we will get pages filled with women and girls in all sorts of sexualised costumes. Unsurprisingly, if we google “schoolboys”, we do not get the equivalent of men in sexualised costumes.

We already see what algorithms are doing to bias and discrimination so, as politicians, we must be alive to that. The question that we must ask ourselves is whether, as parliamentarians, we are doing enough. The fact that we are having this debate today, which has been excellent, is a very important start, but it cannot be the end of it. AI can be embedded in our structural bias in a way that could risk further perpetuating discrimination and societal inequalities, and I think that we all agree that we absolutely must address that.

Earlier this month, the chief executive officer of OpenAI, which is the company that is responsible for creating an artificial intelligence chatbot, said that

“regulation of AI is essential”,

as he testified in his first appearance in front of the US Congress.

Scottish Labour is clear that we welcome the Government’s decision to bring this debate to Parliament and we think that Scotland can be at the forefront of the technological revolution.

However, I believe that we must demonstrate to the public that we are striving to create regulatory control that includes ethics and transparency in the framework. Michelle Thomson is perhaps right that it is quite hard to answer the question of how we create the right ethical framework across a country and, in fact, across the globe, because every country has—or will have—access to AI. Therefore, there is a challenge for all our Governments to make sure that we do the work not just across the UK. I recognise that the minister’s role in that is only within the devolved powers of the Parliament and that the UK Government should be doing more, but we have to see AI in a global context or we will fail to get control of it.

We know that humans can still control and abuse AI. After all, hackers and scammers are human beings who use AI technology to scam people out of the contents of their bank accounts.

I commend the Scottish Government’s approach and I would like us to have more debates on issues of real importance to the world and to the country. We cannot have groupthink on such issues, and we must not accept that it is too difficult to build an ethical and transparent framework that seizes the benefits of AI and protects the world at large. Quite a lot is at stake.

We know that there have been at least two reported cases in which there has been public concern about the leniency of sentencing: first, in a case in which there was no jail sentence for the rape of a 13-year-old girl, and, secondly, in the case of the horrific rape and murder of Jill Barclay, where there was a reduction in sentence of four years.

Today, the First Minister has confirmed that he sees no role for the Scottish Parliament in such issues and that there is a role only for the Sentencing Council. It seems that, as far as he is concerned, it is nothing to do with this Parliament, even though the introduction of the guidelines was a significant change in sentencing policy.

Is the First Minister aware that this Parliament had a say when it came to the discounting of sentences in relation to early pleas? I do not understand why, given that that was the case, Parliament would not have a say in the issue that we are discussing.

When it comes to horrific crimes that are as serious as rape and murder, does the First Minister believe that there should be reduced sentences for under-25s? Can he at least give us some comfort by saying that he believes that this Parliament should have some oversight of significant changes to sentencing policy in Scotland?

To ask the First Minister whether any objections or concerns were raised by the Scottish ministers during the deliberations about the guidelines for sentencing under-25s, which came into effect in January 2022. (S6F-02201)

I want to follow up on your last sentence, on behaviour that is increasingly seen as normalised. This is borne out by some studies in England, which we do not have in Scotland. I am interested in the victims, who are mainly but not always girls, and the harm that can be done to girls. I imagine that you include that in the broad definition.

Sorry, can I interrupt you? I totally accept that, but I want to be specific. I am talking about the scenario in which that image is then shared without consent. I was involved in the consideration of the legislation that was passed in this area and I understand the difficulties about where to draw the line. I am asking about the situation in which that image is shared. I do not think that the law covers that scenario, but I could be wrong.

Good morning, everyone. In our previous session, I was very interested—and I still am—in image-based abuse across the board. I have done a bit of work since that conversation, and I am now convinced that there is a gap in the law in relation to abusive sex-based images, and particularly in relation to consent. I am talking about the sharing of those images and the damage and harm that can be done to children and young people in particular. That is the context.

Alison Penman mentioned that issue specifically. I want to ask her about young people—or however we want to categorise older children.

I noted everything in your submissions about the importance of how you message young people. You would not do that in the same way that you would to adults. I am conscious that most of the work focuses on the risk that is presented by adults. However, we are talking about children. Do you think that there is a gap in the law in relation to the harm that can be done if images are shared? I know that Stuart Allardyce has mentioned that fake images are a live issue. I am not convinced that the law is adequate at the moment. What do you think about that?

Of course, we do not have control over the tech companies that we would like. There is controversy currently around how far the Online Safety Bill goes.

I noted what you said about how to deal with young people and how trauma can be the basis on which people’s behaviour is maybe what it should not be, but there is normalising in schools that is acceptable. Will you come back on that? That is the area in which I think there might need to be stronger messages in the law in relation to the sharing of images because, once images are shared, it is very difficult to get them back.

I know that Stuart Allardyce might want to answer that question, but I will ask Detective Superintendent Martin MacLean what powers Police Scotland has to delete images. I am not even sure that that is in your jurisdiction. The issue is that there is a grey area around whether what we are talking about is actually contrary to the law, but are there any powers on the deletion of images?

They consented to the image, but they did not consent to the sharing. It is the sharing aspect of it that constitutes the offence.