Sinéad Gibney demands accountability over AI and platform harms

Thanks Claire and thanks everybody for being here. I want to dive into some of the points in your submission, Olga, your opening statement. And starting off, I just want to get into the details of what did and didn't happen, I suppose, because as I see it, a notification app was launched on a more mainstream platform than had previously been the case. There was outcry and scandal and we still do not have any actual accountability. Nobody, to my knowledge and I believe to your knowledge, has been held to account for this, arrested, prosecuted. I appreciate there are multiple investigations and initiatives underway to try and deal with it, but that still is the reality in my knowledge. If you have anything to the contrary, please do let me know. So I guess it's just about getting into what is effective within our existing legislation, because I agree with you, why do we need to create new laws when the enforcement of existing laws is just not happening to the right degree So you said that you thought Commission on Demand should have launched an investigation under the Online Safety Code and that they did not do that. I mean, do you, or that they believe that the threshold had not been met to warrant that. I mean, can you tell us more about your analysis of that? Do you think that was the right call? Do you think they still could under the Online Safety Code, for example? I mean, I'm sure they probably still could act. Obviously, this is, you know, potentially an ongoing issue. But I think, so just in relation to the OSMR, and I can share this table with you again, if you like, but so just for, I guess, for everyone in the room, the OSMR, it doesn't, you know, define, let's say, what is illegal, but it provides this framework for Commission on Demand in regards to illegal content online via the OSMR and the Online Safety Code, specifically video sharing platform services, including X. And so it's our position that they could have acted with their powers. Sorry, I'm just trying to find it here now. No problem. So if you were to look at Part 8B of the OSMR, it provides that where there is a reason to believe that there has been a failure to comply with an Online Safety Code, otherwise a contravention, an authorised officer appointed by Commission on Demand can carry out investigations. And this is under Sections 139ZH and 139ZI. The Online Safety Code says that video sharing platforms must take appropriate steps to protect the general public from user-generated videos containing the content, dissemination of which constitutes an activity which is a criminal offence under union law, including child pornography. That's Section 10.1c of the Code. They must also take appropriate measures to protect children from programs or user-generated videos which may impair their physical, mental or moral development. This is children in accordance with Article 6A1 of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. I don't want to go any further into it because it will lead up to time, but I really appreciate that because it seems to me that my second question is redundant. The Online Safety Code does not need to be addressed or amended because it does seem to offer the powers and the initiative to Commission on Demand to investigate. They just chose not to. So that is essentially an organisational level decision. That was a decision. And again, I should be fair. We aren't privy to what they were privy to and we're not privy to the discussions they had with the Commission. Of course. And they also themselves decided or deemed that an EU level cooperation was more appropriate. But I don't understand that. I don't understand that on the basis that there's no reason why we can't do both. There's no reason why they couldn't cooperate with Europe whilst also looking at a domestic level investigation in my mind. So I have a similar question around DPC because DPC eventually launched their investigation under Section 10 of their relevant legislation, whereas your recommendation had been under Section 134. Is that right, Olga? Yes, so we were saying they can take that action under Section 110, which is to open their own Volition Inquiry. But there were circumstances under Article 34 that they can make an application to the High Court for the suspension or restriction of processing of data. And that's where there's an urgent need to protect data subject rights and freedoms under the 2018 Act. So again, that was a choice for them? Also a choice, yes. And they also looked towards the more European level solution ultimately? Or did they? Or there's this domestic level? Well this actually would probably have an effect on both, you know. Okay, thank you. And maybe then just to move to the, and actually pick up on something that James was talking about there, in terms of that kind of separation between AI and platforms. Because as far as I'm concerned, the more we progress with this, and we're dealing with this in this committee, also in Culture, Commons and Sport, where the regulation of online platforms is held. And to me, there is less and less distinction between social media platforms and AI tools. And I'll give you an example, which is the scamming, the pig butchering that's happening on a massive scale right now, where in these scam farms units deploy, first of all, kind of filtering tools to identify victims, then they groom them, then they close the deal essentially, and then they get into the crypto sequence where they take all their money basically. And they are not afraid of using AI tools. I mean, I realise they are scam industry, so they're a legal industry in and of themselves. But to me, the idea, and I've worked in the tech sector, the idea that a tech company isn't going to use a tool, an automated tool, which artificial intelligence essentially as a term covers, to improve the efficiency of their products is just ridiculous. That's what they will all do. Is that your understanding? And maybe, I don't know if Alex or whoever wants to jump in on that. Well, firstly, from the outset, like artificial intelligence has been embedded in some form across all social media platforms anyways. That's what drives our algorithms, that's what drives, it's the basis behind it. What we're seeing now is this huge, huge escalation of generative AI. And that's why we're seeing a massive increase in the dissemination of child sexual abuse materials and just kind of all of these harms have been lifted to another level, because AI has escalated to another level. For us, predominantly what we're seeing is that AI systems are just embedded across social media platforms, gaming platforms, I mean, most anything, education, anything digitised. And education was traditionally digitised, but now here we go, we're moving into a digital age. And artificial intelligence is in the very epicentre of that. But again, it's not the be all and end all, it's what's exasperating harms, but these harms were already there. And if I hear the term human in the loop one more time, I'll go ballistic, like that seems to be the kind of catch all of like, yes, but we have a human in the loop. And I'm sorry, it just isn't enough. One final really quick question. I mean, grok to me is one feature on one app on one platform, and it has created untold harm in society. Are there things on the horizon for you? Are there features or tools that are operating in the dark web, which was where notification was happening before it emerged into the grok space and the more mainstream space? Are there any other tools or features that are essentially unnerving you at the moment or worrying you? I think, Deputy, one of the ones that would bother us is, say, open AI and their erotic companion tools and the likes of those which have nobody looking after them. AI girlfriends, that kind of thing. AI girlfriends, yeah. AI girlfriends, and also even on the notification things, what about, as one of our colleague organisations, CyberSafe Kids, what about bikini, people in bikini, which is not intimate images, but certainly the AI girlfriends. And there is more and more, and we mention it in the submission as well, where the chat bots are leading children into terrible harm, including suicide, as happened recently in the UK.