Chamber and committees

I will return to your earlier important point about the one-person, billion-dollar company. We already have on the planet billion-dollar—trillion-dollar—companies that are at the forefront of all of this. Some would argue that they are not ethical now because they do not pay the taxes that some of us believe that they should. You talked earlier about curing cancer and the possibility of new treatments coming into play, and we can already see the huge differences in terms of early diagnosis by AI applications. You asked, however, who those treatments would be available to. Will they be available only to the elites who run the big companies or will they be available to everyone? Those are the questions that we need to answer in order to deal with the pessimism about where this may leave a lot of folk out there.

We will wait and see whether we have those breakthroughs. Dex, could you also answer that question and maybe go a little bit further? We have had a discussion about the guardrails, the safeguards and what we need to do there but, as has been discussed, what is really required is an international framework agreement, which I think may be unlikely or very difficult to reach. How do we persuade the elites who are in control that an international framework is the right thing for all of us, and also for them, to follow?

Perhaps a computing science degree with philosophy is the way forward for all this.

Thanks for coming today. Convener, I should say that I have met with Steve previously for some good conversation.

I will stick with the ethics aspect. We have heard from others today about who is doing well. Leo Fakhrul, you mentioned the fact that Singapore is driving things forward but with limits. We are operating in a global context here. What we require for governance is an international framework, which may not be seen as beneficial to some of the elites out there. Is such a framework required for us to have the right governance here and to continue the trust that there obviously is in Scotland’s businesses?

I think that you talked earlier about AI-induced chaos. I am playing devil’s advocate here, because we have to in some regards. Earlier, you held up your smartphone; Dex also asked what we have done with that technology and whether it has been beneficial. I think that we may all agree that we have more communication, but is it meaningful communication? In terms of using AI, by means of which we can get more done, how do we ensure that what we do is meaningful? For example, probably every single one of us around this table is receiving a lot more mass communication that has been produced by AI. The temptation is, of course, to respond by using AI, which is not my bag, I have to say, at this time. I am not sure that some of that communication is as meaningful as it should be. We could see a situation where there is lots more communication, but would it be worthwhile, meaningful and make a difference to our society? How do we get around some of those things so that we do not get to the AI-induced chaos that you talked about?

The convener is desperate for me to finish, because we are running out of time. I have one final question. We have talked about the Scotlands, the Estonias and the South Koreas of this world, but the drivers of all of this—the elites, if you like—are mainly American tech companies. America is not a nation that is renowned for creating good regulation, and it could be said of the current regime in the United States that that is even less so. How do we persuade those giants, or the elites, that an international framework is also the right way forward for them?

Thank you. My final question will be brief, convener. Does there need to be holistic resilience investment in resources for infrastructure, so that we do not do something in one area that might have a major impact on others downstream—for example, flood prevention measures?

Good morning. Many of the issues that we have discussed today have been at a pretty high level. We do not do enough portraying them in relation to what happens in folk’s day-to-day lives. For example, someone who lives next to the River Dee in Aberdeen will have seen quite clearly, this year, a level of water scarcity that has not happened for some time. Equally, someone who lives elsewhere near the Dee might have been affected by flooding in recent times. I am keen to know how the Climate Change Committee feels about getting messaging out at local level to persuade folk that our net zero targets are the right ones and to recognise that resilience planning and investment in infrastructure are required.

You have talked about houses that are at risk of flooding. Over the years, it has frustrated me greatly to see a housing development being called, for example, “The Meadows”, but then people are surprised that it is suddenly considered prone to flooding when, to be frank, its historical name should have told us something. Ms Lennon picked up on that in her earlier questioning. As we move forward, do decision makers need to take cognisance of what insurance companies say about possibly imposing higher premiums—or even not insuring properties—in such areas?

Thank you for allowing me the supplementary, convener.

I am really interested in the conversations that have taken place about the work of Dr Gerald Lip.

Earlier this year, I lodged a motion in the Parliament to highlight Dr Lip’s contribution to large-scale clinical trials using AI, particularly the GEMINI project—Grampian’s evaluation of Mia in an innovative national breast screening initiative. I believe that his work has led to 12 per cent more cancers being detected than has been the case in routine practice, which is quite incredible.

If we look at the cost aspect of all that, we might view it not only in budgetary terms but in human cost terms. Surely such an advance is great for all of us. The human cost of an early diagnosis is better for the patient, so the human cost of their illness is likely to be lessened. Looked at from the perspective of health economics or societal economics, getting a diagnosis and treatment more quickly, which is likely to lead to better outcomes, should also mean that that person can be fit and healthy again and get back to being productive.

We should be talking more about the Gerald Lips of this world. Why are more universities, hospitals and health boards not looking to create the type of appointments that Dr Lip has, in leading the use of artificial intelligence in clinical practice? Why are we not moving such activities on more quickly? Why are we not using Gerald Lip as something of an evangelist? Why are we not hearing more about that kind of work?