 The final item of business is members' business debate on motion 10161, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on artificial intelligence—nothing personal, Mr Gibson—future prosperity, a threat to employment or existential threat. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put, with members who wish to speak, please press the request to speak buttons. I call Kenneth Gibson to open the debate for around seven minutes, please. First, I wish to thank colleagues who took the time to sign my motion, particularly Gordon Lindhurst and Tabby Scott, as without their cross-party support, this debate could not have taken place. I also thank Mark Dames, Head of Public Affairs BT Scotland and his colleague Dr Andrew Starkey and Heriot-Walt University for their excellent briefings. Just four weeks ago, the world lost Stephen Hawking, one of our most inspiring and high-profile scientists, a someone who relied upon automation and artificial intelligence to allow him to continue leading his incredible life far beyond the two-year prognosis given in 1963. Mr Hawking was also one of the loudest voices warning against the dangers posed by the future relationship between humanity and AI. Speaking in 2014, he went so far as to say, I quote, that the development of artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race. He was not alone in expressing such concerns. Tesla car maker and space pioneer Elon Musk suggested that AI is as big a threat to humanity as climate change on nuclear war. Sundar Pinscher, chief executive Google, said that the impact of artificial intelligence will be more profound than electricity or fire. While some prefer to consign AI to the fringes of science fiction and simply ignore the inevitable universal adoption of automation, I believe that it presents perhaps the biggest chance that society will face in our lifetime. It is therefore disappointing that the Scottish Government itself has not brought forward a debate to the chamber on this topic. Of course, the apocalyptic notion that computers with superior intellects will eventually go rogue and turn against us is, I am assured, by AI engineers, highly unlikely. With technical limitations holding back the ability of computers to process the same volume of information as our brains do these on a daily basis. Even mine, Presiding Officer. Although they have potential for evolutionary exponential growth, they may think in completely different and more peaceful ways than humans who have survived and evolved through millennia of war, famine and disease. What we must prepare for is the rapid acceleration of the three main technological trends that will impact Scotland's economy. Firstly, the rapidly increasing and diversifying capabilities of machines and data-driven decision making. Secondly, the departure from traditional business models with new startups trending towards asset-like digital platform-based business. Thirdly, global connectivity enabling collaboration in decentralised online communities. Those dramatically shift the standard relationship between humans and machines, substantially reducing the involvement of workers in everyday business processes and customer transactions. Although this may be good news for businesses benefiting from streamlined processes, fears are mounting that AI technology will destroy jobs and indeed entire industries faster than it creates them. Creating mass unemployment and handing market control to a handful of dominant firms quick to harness the new technology. The current wave of technological changes so far reaching has been described as the fourth industrial revolution and an excellent report published by the Scottish Council for Development Industry in collaboration with BT Scotland, entitled Automatic for the People. Of course, each preceding industrial revolution has produced winners and losers, but the distinction here is that the influence and effects of AI and machine learning technology will be ubiquitous. Transformational over a few short years and not reserved to a few sectors. Unless we radically reassess our workforce, particularly those of the most vulnerable jobs, we are at considerable social dislocation. As the motion highlights, the recent report by the Centre for Cities suggested that as many as 230,000 Scottish jobs could be lost in our four biggest cities over the next decade. However, according to the SCDI and BT report that I referenced earlier, as many as 837,290 jobs are at high risk of being lost to automation. From 8 per cent in education to 44 per cent in retail and 63 per cent in water supply, the latter alone meaning 10,642 fewer jobs. High-skilled private sector occupations are expected to increase, while lower-skilled more routine activities shrink. We are not just talking about the future. Businesses of all types already use AI to forecast demand, hire staff and provide customer services. In 2017 alone, companies globally spent £15 billion in AI-related mergers and acquisitions—over 26 times more than in 2015—demonstrating the momentum that AI now has. The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that applying AI technology in marketing, sales and supply chain departments could be worth £2 trillion in profits and savings over the next 20 years. In financial services, AI already shapes new processes and financial controls, regularly reporting, applicant checks and referencing data, eliminating human error and critical financial reporting. In healthcare, AI can eliminate subjectivity and patient diagnosis and use algorithms to connect symptoms and test results, delivering more accurate prognosis. Its use is also ranged from detecting criminal activity to identifying web material that is designed to radicalise Facebook or YouTube users. AI could transform the workplace and give employers unprecedented control over staff. From Amazon-style wristbands, which track the efficiency of warehouse staff to smart ID badges, which track interaction between employees, data will be harvested and used in ways that we may not yet conceive. Big Brilla could be watching you. John Mason I thank the member for giving way. Some of it seems a little bit gloomy on the jobs front. Would he accept that, in hospitality, in the coffee shops, a lot of people want to be served by a person, and that makes a real difference? Sorry, yes. I would certainly hope that human interaction remains at the forefront. I am one of those people who never uses a machine at a test school, who are ASDA, for example. I always prefer to be served by a shop worker, but the trend is quite simple, straightforward and heading in one direction. The position is that we have to adapt to our economy and look at the fact that the people who own those coffee shops may agree that, indeed, some people will want to be served by a human, others will be looking at the bottom line. Of course, it seems reasonable that AI could be used to screen for anomalies of flag-up differences in pay between genders and races, which conscious or unconscious bias could cause a human to overlook. Yet, as the Cambridge Analytica saga demonstrated, data as a valuable asset in our laws are not yet fit to protect workers from automated surveillance, which goes beyond the consent baked into employment contracts. I am not here to provoke alarm or theorise about the end of days, but rather to encourage the Scottish Government to join with other Governments, which in collaboration with industry and civil society already set out their AI and automation strategies. Indeed, the programme for government states an intention to transform Scotland into a nation that will lead an AI, machine learning, data analytics and low-carbon energy. Nevertheless, I doubt that AI has currently been given the high priority required. Germany already has a 10 to 15-year strategy to advance the adoption of new digital technologies across industry, and federal departments are exploring aspects of AI, including the ethics of self-driving cars raised in Ivan McKee's members' debate, the impact on the workplace and the use of drone technology. France commissioned a national AI strategy while Estonia is exploring the use of automation and healthcare finance in other sectors. With some of the world's leading research universities here in Scotland, notably Herriot-Watt, already undertaking cutting-edge work and a plethora of data-intensive businesses that chose to set up in our cities, and confident with the right strategy and outlook, Scotland can make the most of the opportunities afforded by these innovations. The Fraser Valder Institute has already advised that much of the research undertaken into potential impacts of technological change on Scotland has used UK-wide data and applied it to Scotland's unique industrial structure. To more accurately predict and plan for technological transformation, the Scottish Government should lead the way in researching what tasks and activities will be impacted by automation and the distinct impact that that will have on Scotland's businesses and workers. With careful planning and proper regulation, technological change will create growth and help businesses grapple with a shrinking working-age population and weak productivity growth. According to the PwC report, the economic impact of artificial intelligence in the UK economy published last June, and the impact of AI across Scotland's economy could boost annual GDP by £16.7 billion by 2030 through developing new industries. While I have talked at length about technology, what really matters is Scotland's people. Its critical education training equips not just our young people, but the 80 per cent of Scotland's current workforce will still be of working-age by 2030, with the skills necessary to adapt to upcoming technological changes. There is consensus that the principles and design of curriculum for excellence are right for the opportunities and the chance of life and work in the 21st century, but there is more that we can do to better prepare our workforce and the economy of the future. We are all familiar with the stereotype of the working-age in closer to retirement who suddenly finds that there is no market for their skills and who is unable to adapt to new technology. Yet in this digital era, people could face this prospect far earlier in their careers. The Scottish Government must foster a culture where lifelong on-the-job learning is not just an optional extra, but an inherent feature of working-life. I am sure that everyone has their own vision of Scotland's future. What we must all sure agree on is that artificial intelligence is an issue of global significance that cannot be ignored. In the words of Andrew Carter, chief executive of Centre for Cities, the time to act is now. We move to the open debate. Speeches are around four minutes, please. Gordon Lindhurst, followed by Tom Arthur. Deputy Presiding Officer, I did not realise that the words Big Brother may be watching you were the cue for John Mason to make an intervention, so I will not use them. I see that he is leaving the chamber at this point anyway. Let me begin by thanking Kenneth Gibson for bringing this debate to Parliament. I signed his motion because I think that it raises a number of important points about artificial intelligence or AI, and those points are worth reflecting on. As the convener of the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee, I can see that there are potentially huge and also positive implications for Scotland in the coming years. Other issues, as has already been highlighted, may need to be looked at more closely. It is important, however, not to be alarmist about future developments. I think myself of the concerns when computers first became mainstream a number of years ago, not that long ago, and people were worried that everyone would be out of a job. What we soon learned at that stage anyway was that a digital copy had to be kept of everything and a hard copy, which meant that we had a double workload. We may be beyond that now in this paperless Parliament, but certainly at the beginning that is the way it was. New jobs were created by the computer industry and the resultant cyberworld that we are all now familiar with, whether we want to be or not. Research by Deloitte has found that, while technology is estimated to have cost 800,000 lower-skilled jobs between 2001 and 2015, 3.5 million higher-skilled jobs have been created in their place as a result of technology. Nevertheless, we should not exaggerate the effects of AI. A constituent wrote to me after I signed the motion to express concern about it, suggesting that it may be an and I quote, exercise in futurism reminiscent of the predictions made in the 1960s that we would now be having holidays on the moon. End quote, so I don't think any of us have had a holiday on the moon at least not yet today. Nevertheless, that constituent agreed that a debate on AI was well overdue in the Scottish Parliament and, in fact, their principal concern was that it should be an evidence-based one. I would hope that we can all agree on that, for there are identified and legitimate concerns, such as social and economic implications of increased automation, use of obsolete data, protection of personal privacy and inappropriate application of biases and prejudices that are established from real-world data transferred into automated systems without adjustment. Those are just a few of the things that are legitimate concerns about the advance of AI. However, let us remember at the same time, as is noted in the motion, that the effects and productivity and resultant contribution in boosting the economy can be positive and can be immense. An increased productivity is something that we could do in Scotland with the lack of growth that we have seen over the past eight years. We can harness our advantage by the progress that we have made in Scotland already on the AI front, which can prove key to being at the forefront of the technology of the future. That was recognised in the UK Government's industrial strategy that growing the artificial intelligence and data-driven economy is one of the four grand challenges that the UK can take advantage of. The autumn budget included £75 million on AI-related developments last year and £21 million for tech specialisms in the UK, including for a hub here in Edinburgh, a city with a very successful AI track record and indeed in this very chamber. Deputy Presiding Officer, let us recognise the benefits that AI brings at the same time as we remain live to the risks and difficulties that it can also create. Tom Arthur, to be followed by Jackie Baillie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to begin by thanking my colleague Kenny Gibson for bringing this debate to Parliament. I, a few weeks back, debated driverless cars and members' debates sponsored by Ivan McKee, and there was a particularly interesting contribution that Mr Gibson made in referring to the trolley dilemma in regard to how a driverless car decides how to interact in such a situation. That speaks to some of the problems and challenges that it will have with AI moving forward, and it speaks to the profundity of attempting to understand the impacts that it will have. In terms of looking forward, it might be useful to perhaps begin by looking back and situate what could potentially happen within the broader context of previous industrial revolutions. Mr Lindhurst referred to the potential for alarmism and also the overstating what could actually happen. If we think about the first industrial revolution of the gas of the impact of steam and the railway, that is perhaps the most profound changes that have happened since the agricultural revolution, then if we think about synthetic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic dyes, for example, again profound, but one of the most profound inventions was washing machine emancipated many by a large majority of women from domestic drudgery, and men too. The microwave oven, the kitchen, palm to water, and sanitation. Those are the most profound impacts. If we are going to suggest that the fourth industrial revolution as a consequence of AI and automation will be equally as profound as that, we have to consider what we mean. In terms of whether AI will have an impact on that level, I think that it possibly could. The reason why I do so is that we reach a stage where machines can start to learn for themselves, and then there is that situation for exponential growth. We are some who forecast that machines will pass the tuning test within our lifetimes, and when that happens, that creates a range of considerations that do seem like science fiction but could become very real. If a machine develops a capacity to think, potentially, to feel, should that machine have rights? Should it have responsibilities? Should it have duties and obligations? Those are some of the questions that we may face going forward, and the fact that they are even possible suggests how profound that impact could be. I think that, rather than speculating concerns, much attention has, of course. Would the right to vote to be one of the rights that you would have to consider in that scenario that you are postulating? Tom Arthur. It might sound a bit so speculative to be almost farcical, but if we think of the roles that machines will have, for example, law as potentially paralegals, the introduction of machines to generate automated responses for the civil service, as some jurisdictions are experimenting with. Potentially, they could have a role in supporting politicians in doing their job representing their constituents. If, for example, a machine could potentially go and take on a piece of constituency casework, there are significant implications for our democratic system and how we think about that even before we get to a stage of genuine artificial intelligence. However, the one point that I wanted to pick up on, and it is, of course, speculative concerns aside the most profound point, which is the supposed potential threat to jobs. I think that a point that has been highlighted is that it is a question of job displacement or job replacement. I want to welcome the Scottish Government's latest publication on this, the technological change in the Scottish labour market, which I am sure that the minister will refer to. It takes a very balanced view, and certainly my experience on the economy jobs and fair work committee when we have taken evidence is that, although there are people on the fringes who make predictions of either catastrophe or no difference at all, the general consensus seems to be that, as what has happened in previous industrial revolutions is new jobs will emerge. Just as we saw the decline of horses as a means of transportation and power, other jobs took the place. That is potentially where we are going forward, but it is very important that we are cognisant about the opportunities and the risks that are going forward. Although it is speculative and, in quote, we have a duty as politicians to start putting those ideas into the public domain and making sure that the population that is large is aware of them, because there is an inevitability about it, and when it does happen, those changes do take effect. It is vital that we are prepared and, most importantly, that the public are prepared as well. Jackie Baillie, followed by Ivan McKee. Like others, I thank Kenny Gibson for bringing this debate to Parliament for some strange reasons. Some of my colleagues in indeed is burst into laughter when I said that the debate was on artificial intelligence by Kenny Gibson. Who knows why they would do that? I find that frankly shocking. Continuing in Tom Arthur's train of thought, he was struggling to talk about liberating women, he wanted to say, from the kitchen by the invention of the washing machine and plumbing and various things. Far be it for me to point out that you would liberate men too, and far be it for me to say that perhaps artificial intelligence might liberate women from men completely, but there you go. That is a novelty for another time. The Labour Party has, of course, long been committed to protecting workers' rights, ensuring high standards of working conditions and creating the opportunity for organisations and businesses to thrive. In the 21st century, I have no doubt that the world is changing, the economy is changing, work is changing and those on-going, life-changing technological advances will change the face of work as we know it. We are on the brink of the next industrial revolution. It would be foolish of us, I think, to approach such a fundamental change to our country's industrial landscape with anything less than the enthusiasm that previous progress was met with, because the opportunity to innovate our sectors, to improve the experience of workers, to strengthen our position on the world stage through the lights of artificial intelligence should be embraced with open arms, whilst ensuring that there are precautions in place to minimise any negative impacts that may arise. I think that it is vital that we see this change. It is vital that we maximise its potential benefits, but we need to stay in control. We should be shaping the way that automation works for us rather than allowing artificial intelligence to shape us. That means working with the trade unions, it means working alongside employers to dictate how best artificial intelligence can fit into our economy to guarantee the most we can get of the progress as we can. I think that the changes that automation presents are far greater than we previously thought, and it will affect every part of our economy. However, I am sure that Kenneth Gibson agrees with me that the current state of our economy leaves little room for complacency. That has been evidenced in the recent figures on the minimal growth Scotland's economy achieved in the last quarter. That would suggest that, if we want to improve economic performance, which we all do in Scotland, we could drive a significant boost to our productivity and to our GDP, and automation could provide an opportunity to do just that. As Kenneth Gibson has already highlighted, and I think that it is worth repeating, PricewaterhouseCoopers, in June 2017, told us that the impact of AI across Scotland's economy could boost annual GDP by up to £16 billion. Sorry, I was waiting with bated breath to hear what you were going to say next, Mr Arthur. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I would be interested to hear Jackie Baillie's view on the potential of a combination of the internet of things, big data and artificial intelligence, for reviving the idea of a planned economy. That is something that we believe that planning is critically important in the economy. If you take some of our recent debates about procurement, the opportunity to secure more of the supply chain in Scotland is something that is shared across the chamber. If we can use artificial intelligence and big data to achieve that even more, I do not see what the problem with that is. I want us to get the maximum for our investment that we can, and if artificial intelligence helps with that, then we should embrace it. I want to see better conditions for workers. I want to see maximum productivity in our sectors, but we know that industries such as transport, retail and administration are likely to diminish in size. However, industries such as those that currently hold the majority of Britain's 900,000-zero-hours contracts, and Scotland's something like 75,000-zero-hours contracts. In many cases, they are low-skilled and low-wage jobs. We have put a huge amount of time and effort in Labour to try to change the exploitative nature of those jobs. I commend to the chamber our industrial strategy and Tom Watson's future of work commission, because in there are plans to ensure that workers will receive the retraining required to take full advantage of the high-skilled high-wage jobs that often come hand-in-hand with automation. We are seeing new technology and telecoms industries emerge and expected increase in Scotland in ICT and digital tech jobs from 84,000 to 150,000 by 2020. That is an increase of 11,000 new skilled jobs each and every year in that sector. However, we have a challenge, a distinct lack of skilled young workers, and we need to train even more 16 to 24-year-olds to meet that challenge. Presiding Officer, I can see you waving at me. I think that artificial intelligence, despite the hilarity earlier on, provides us with an opportunity to secure economic prosperity for future generations and to make artificial intelligence work for our economy. Ivan McKee to be followed by Brian Whittle. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank my colleague Kenny Gibson for bringing this very important subject to the chamber for debate this evening. The subject of AI or artificial intelligence, although I am not sure that Jackie Baill had a different AI in mind during the earlier part of her speech, is one of the biggest challenges that Kenny Gibson rightly said that is facing society and our economy at the moment. It is a hugely broad subject and I think that there are two particular directions that we want to focus on. First of all, on the economic impact and how we manage that and then say something brief about the moral impact that has been mentioned earlier. The scale of the impact in economic terms has been referenced by the reports that we have talked about, the city impact report, the PwC report, the SEDI automation report. The PwC report talks about a potential growth in the Scottish economy of 8.4 per cent due to artificial intelligence by the year 2030. Reference in the UK, which I think could grow by 10.3 per cent due to the difference in the structure of the economies and that is something that we need to bear in mind as we talk about how best to exploit the opportunities of artificial intelligence for the Scottish economy. As many members have said, we have been here before. I remember growing up in the 1970s and people talked about the changes that technology was going to make in the early 80s with huge unemployment as a consequence, but we came through that and new technologies and new jobs took up the slack. We do not still have huge typing pools of people typing letters out of technology, but we do not still have a million people working in coal mines, largely gone and replaced by other jobs. Artificial intelligence and those technological developments have the huge potential to dramatically increase productivity and allow us to do a lot more than, as Kenny Gibson mentioned, for example, in healthcare to do a lot more of better quality as a consequence. What do we do as a society to prepare to manage that best? I think that one of the things that I would say is that it is about focusing not on the whole breadth of what might happen, but picking out a number of specific sectors where we can leverage the skills base that we have and put some investment and focus into that. We are looking at that in these trends. We are working with academia, business, government, trade unions, third sector to identify, as I say, a handful of sectors that we are really going to invest and focus on to become world-class. Self-drive vehicles are something that I have brought to the chamber in a debate. That could be one of the sectors, and I think that we need to identify another. Business is one of the hardest things that we need to do in terms of strategy, is to anticipate when we need to move on from our very successful business model and build a completely different business model and anticipate in the future. That kind of disruptive technology is something that we need to embrace now before it is too late. How do we configure our education and skills system to be able to deal with that? How do we create the attitude that life is not a job for life or even a career for life? It is constant reskilling into different jobs and myself moving into the career of politics at the age of 50s, perhaps. As Jackie Baillie said, the important thing through all of that is staying in control and being able to manage those impacts. A brief word on the societal impact, clearly through the transition, there are a lot of things that are going to happen and it is going to be very difficult for individuals and their families. I think that it is worth talking briefly at this stage about their role, perhaps, at a universal citizen's basic income and perhaps playing that to smooth out that transition, give people a support network but also the confidence to be able to take risks and identify opportunities. Stand-up businesses, even if they are going to fail, they know that there is a support network there and to be able to move from one career to another without hitting huge financial hardships as a consequence. I think that that has to figure very largely as a part of where we are going with AI. Very briefly on the moral side of things, clearly the singularity concept of something that potentially is a bit scary when things go wrong. Tom Arthur pointed out that should machines have rights and responsibilities, perhaps something for discussion, who knows. In conclusion, I think that there are four or five things that I would like to ask the Government to focus on and think about. One, what are we doing to identify what specific sectors we should be focused on to take the best advantage of the coming technological revolution? What are we doing in terms of education and skills to prepare ourselves for that? What are we doing to ensure that social transition is as smooth as possible? I think that that is where the citizen's income perhaps comes in to start the debate on the moral aspects of that and perhaps to pull together as Kenny Gibson identified an artificial intelligence strategy that allows us to move forward with some confidence. With that, I will conclude. Thank you very much. The last two open debate speeches are Brian Whittle, followed by Clare Adamson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I also congratulate Kenny Gibson for scooting time in the chamber to debate what I think is a hugely interesting topic, and I am delighted to be able to contribute. It gives us so much scope to what we can actually talk about. Death, taxes and change, the three guarantees in life. Of course, change is happening at such an increasing rate that more and more we are having to adapt and change our skillset, as Ivan McKee has pointed out, just to stay in the job market or even keep up with life. We humans are instinctively wary of change and tend to resist, but as all the trekkies around the room will know, resistance is futile. Technology has advanced at such an incredible amount in my time. I mentioned in the chamber before that I did not have a mobile phone until I was in my 30s. I remember black and white television with three channels. When you actually had to get off the sofa to change the channel, can you imagine that, Deputy Presiding Officer? We were on a technological highway and moving at such a speed that is increasingly difficult to keep up with, and I have always been interested in the mythical technological singularity, that predicted point in time where machines become smarter than human beings. Ray Kurzweil, who is the Google's director of engineering, as well as that well-known futurist, predicts that we will hit that point within the next 30 years or so. In fact, he reckons around 2029. We should take heed because of the 147 predictions that he has made since 1990. He has an 86 per cent accuracy. He says that the singularity will, and I quote, lead to computers having human intelligence, are putting them inside of our brains, connecting them to the cloud, expanding who we are. Today, that is not just a future scenario, it is here in part and it is going to accelerate back to my reference of 7 of 9 and Borg. We all have to accept that it is coming sooner or later, but the question is, should we fear the singularity? Everyone knows that, when machines become smarter than humans, they tend to take over the world, in a matrix style. Many of the world's science and technology leaders, as Kenny Gibson has alluded to, such as the late Stephen Hawking, Alan Musk and even Bill Gates warn us about that kind of future, and it certainly helps to keep the world's sci-fi films to do as busy and keeps us well entertained. Kurzweil suggests that the singularity, at which point a single brilliant AI enslave humanity, is just fiction. I would like to suggest that AI offers us opportunity. You may consider that this futuristic cybernetic society is more of a fantasy than a glimpse into the future. However, there are people with their computers in their brains today. Parkinson's patients, an example of cybernetics getting a foothold, perhaps in the future technology will be invented that can go inside your brain and help your memory with the implications for dementia sufferers, for example. Perhaps the vision of machines taking over the world at the point of the singularity should be replaced with a future of human machine synthesis. That opens up whole new worlds, literally space exploration. How do we as a species, with our frail bodies and minds, travel the vast distances that are required to continue our thirst for knowledge and our need to consume resource across the galaxy? Currently, we could not survive the journeys in space to explore other parts of the solar system, let alone the stars beyond. AI is still the most feasible option that science has come up with, perhaps even downloading our own consciousness into machines. Currently, a Mars rover continues to send back information from the surface of Mars and ultimately we need to leave this planet for the human race to survive. Perhaps we need to rethink our definition of what constitutes a human being. As Kenny Gibson most suggests, we do not really know what is coming down the track. What we need to do is ensure that Scotland is ready to take advantages of the opportunity that AI will undoubtedly bring. We have a great track record in developing new technologies in Scotland. Deputy Presiding Officer, whatever our thoughts and fears are, we can confidently say that AI is not so much of, I'll be back, more a case of it's here to stay and we need to embrace the opportunities that it will bring. Clare Adamson Thank you for letting me in this evening. I hadn't intended to speak in this evening, but I was absolutely fascinated by the contributions in the chamber this evening. In the 1980s, I was studying for my computing degree and it was quite an interesting degree. It was what is now Glasgow Caledonian University and although it was a science degree, we also studied psychology and business and accounting. As part of our psychology course, we were asked to look into what the effect our industry might have on future generations, what impact it could have on working lives. That was put to us in the context of what was then the whopping riots outside when it was moving from the manual printing process to digital printing process and we saw those issues outside the whopping and how the police reacted to that. It was a really interesting lesson, but I can't remember who wrote it, but an essay that talked about the human race as a whole and our psyche as a collective psyche and how we respond to technology. The author had talked about Copernicus and his view about moving from the earth being the centre of the universe to creating the sun as the centre of the universe. Of course, it was proved years later with Foucault's pendulum that led to Galileo being excommunicated for the Catholic Church. So shocking were those thoughts that the human being was not the centre of the universe. That person suggested that the next stage that could have such a shocking effect on humans was the realisation when artificial intelligence came about that it would have the same effect on the human race because we would no longer be the sentient being in our universe. It was absolutely fascinating to see that, especially in the context of what real technology was changing in our lives. We talked about the Luddites and how they had approached the technology in their time in destroying weaving machines because it was a threat to them right up to the modern day and what was happening in our country at the moment. It has remained with me that whole thought about how we approach technology. If it has taught me anything that the people who are standing against the advancement of technology and against it happening very rarely win, it is something that we cannot hold back. The way to get an advantage from that is to be the leaders in it, to be the experts in it and to be the people that lead in new technology and new innovations. I want to, as someone who worked in IT, to be quite clear that a lot of what we have talked about is not AI today. In my time of studying, we would have been called expert systems, which is taking the knowledge that we have as humans, applying it to a computing function of some kind and getting a result from that. However, the computer was not doing anything other than replicating what had been told to it by humans. It was absolutely not an artificial intelligence. It was just capturing data and using that data in a positive way or to achieve an outcome. It was a health situation. I was looking at whether there were capturing information from medical people to arrive at a diagnosis based on what steps they would go through to achieve a diagnosis. When we see the current opportunities in terms of sensors and the work that has been done there and sensor technology, again, that is all about capturing information, capturing our environment, capturing information and using that data in a positive way. However, we do not have the real artificial intelligence yet. That is something that the warnings that have been there should be known and that we should be very cognitant of. While we have the examples of Marvin the paranoid android and Holly from Red Dwarth right through to HAL 9000 to kill off his entire crew, the warnings and the concerns of us are there. While we can look at the benign picture of Asimov, the Honda robot, which is very cute and looks very benign and unthetting, we know that the technology in the air can be used to weaponise, to be used in a military forum. All of those things for me, the most important thing is that we understand that technology, but we use it for the benefit of humanity. Paul Wheelhouse will respond to the debate for around seven minutes. However, the way in which it is gone, as long as you like, really. I, too, would like to thank Kenneth Gibson for securing this motion and for welcoming the contributions today from members across the chamber. Regardless of which study it is, we talk about whether it is a centre for cities or a BT, SCDI or PwC, whichever we rely on for our estimates of the impacts within society. The significance of the issue for our economy and Scotland's people, our workforce, cannot be overstated. It is right that Kenneth Gibson has brought it to the chamber. I take his point on board entirely about Government time. I will play that back to my colleagues, but I want to reassure him and members across the chamber that there is an issue that we take particularly seriously. The topic of artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies has always interested me. I mean, a number of references to science fiction have been made today, but I suppose that one film based on the book do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep, Blade Runner and its successor film. To get that in on the agenda today is one of my personal favourites, but it does raise some ethical issues about how robots and artificial intelligence can be used. That ties in very well with what Clare Adamson was just saying. I think that it is a very important point that cuts across all the speeches today about the development of technologies and whether that can be used to benefit mankind and our planet rather than do it harm. However, the topic has been one that has interested me. It resonates strongly with the Scottish Government. It is in short an area where ever-increased attention is now being turned. Tom Arthur referred to the work that has been led by Jamie Hepburn in respect of the technological change in the Scottish labour market. That ties in to some of the points that Ivan McKee was making about what we are doing to look at the labour market and to adjust a curriculum in our schools and colleges and universities to ensure that our young people are prepared for the world that they will encounter. In March last year, my colleague Keith Brown, Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work, was asked to provide a welcoming speech at the European Robotics Forum. It was the first time for the very prestigious event to be held in the UK. It attracted more than 800 delegates. It has provided a valuable opportunity for policy makers and stakeholders to engage in the very subject. For the organisers to have chosen Edinburgh to hold a conference, it is a testament to Scotland's strength in computer science research and proof that our skills and expertise in this area has achieved recognition across Europe. Indeed, as I will touch on, the Edinburgh Centre for Robotics is led from Edinburgh, as you understand by the name, by Herot-Watt University and University of Edinburgh. That is a UK-wide collaborative body. Edinburgh University, for example, to reflect on the point that Brian Whittle made, is involved with working with NASA on its robots to be used in the future missions to Mars. We are very much at the cutting edge of the technology, and we can be proud of that. As we can remember, Kenneth Gibson has rightly challenged us to think about how that impacts on the people of Scotland. Understandably, much of the focus has been on the impact on occupations and jobs. Sometimes it is classified or codified around referring to the loss of jobs or employment, but it may also be replacing tasks with unemployment, so the jobs themselves may remain. However, the way in which those jobs are done may change fundamentally using technology to make and assist that process and make it easier. I am grateful to the minister for giving way. I wonder if he would want to comment on the metrics that we use with regard to the economy, such as headline employment figures, GDP and productivity, because they often do not capture exploitative work, zero-hours contracts and work that perhaps is not very stimulating. One of the features that we are seeing is the hollowing out of middle-skilled jobs. Although there might be growth in high-skilled jobs, equally, greater automation could see an increase in low-skilled jobs. Does he agree with me that we need a superior set of metrics to understand what is happening so that we can direct us, change to improve people's wellbeing and overall quality of life and not simply see an increase in GDP? Paul Wheelhouse? We, as a Government, have been looking increasingly with stakeholders around the use of going beyond GDP and looking at alternative measures of the economic success of our society. I take the member's point entirely about the difficulties in picking out some of the issues around zero-hours contracts and other exploitative contracts in those measurements. With AI, that will make further complicated matters in understanding the impact on individuals and the ability to translate that into wages and wage growth. It is certainly something that we need to be mindful of. On the focus that we have had on jobs, emerging technologies such as AI present opportunities for Scotland, and Jackie Baillie is quite right to highlight that. Of course, we must acknowledge that those opportunities come with a number of concerns. To be fair, Jackie Baillie recognised that as well. It is part of human nature to have concerns where there is an unknown, but where there is an unknown, we can learn, of course, to learn as where Scotland thrives as a nation. As I indicated earlier, our universities are considered world-class and have history of excellence and fields such as data science, machine learning and, of course, artificial intelligence. I take clear Anderson's point that we need to be careful about how we describe artificial intelligence. I defer to her knowledge as an IT specialist in terms of expert systems versus true artificial intelligence. Emerging technologies can drive growth and productivity, a point that Gordon Lindhurst has made. As we move further into the modern day commercial environment, our industries are required to continuously adapt. To pick up Ivan McKee's point about which sectors we are focusing, clearly manufacturing will be a area where we will have to pay a lot of attention. Equally, there are service sectors such as financial services, where the growth of fintech we are already seeing is concerned to many members here in the loss of their branches across the country. That is partly a response to move to technology and increasing that will engage more in artificial intelligence as we go forward. Those are all things that are happening now, here and now, and we are seeing in public sector opportunities in terms of healthcare to improve patient experience and quality of life for those who have disabilities. Although Stephen Hawking's points were well made around the threats, clearly he did benefit from technology and we need to identify opportunities where we can improve quality of life for individuals. However, we need to focus on trying to, as we said earlier, focus on where we can gain for mankind. By integrating processes such as automation, we can remain competitive in a global marketplace. That is in particular key to the future of our manufacturing base. A sector highlighted in a number of studies is one that will be strongly impacted on by emerging technologies. That is why the Scottish Government has committed £48 million to the National Manufacturing Institute for Scotland in Incheonan to help to accelerate innovation by enabling manufacturing companies to trial and test new processes, applications and technologies. We are also supporting the development through manufacturing 4.0 service to help companies to understand how emerging technologies can be integrated into their businesses effectively and efficiently in that service and will be launched properly very soon. The institute will also help to support a workforce by providing resource to develop and enhance the skills that they have and their employers need, resulting in more competitive businesses while safeguarding jobs. We are a small nation, but we are proud to be vibrant, inclusive and outward-looking digital nation as well. The Scottish Government has a vision for making the most of data to champion across Scotland a trustworthy use of that for public benefit. Delivering innovation using our skills and data science and artificial intelligence techniques is an important strand of us achieving that vision and we are working to accelerate that through data-driven research. Scotland's refreshed digital strategy, realising Scotland's full potential in a digital world, was published in March last year and it sets out plans for ensuring that we put digital at the heart of everything we do. Data innovation plays an important role within that strategy and, along with digital, will create an irresistible force to drive innovation in our public services. There is also the importance of transparency for this work to be carried out under robust ethical and governance frameworks. Kenneth Gibson, Clare Adamson and others have made powerful remarks around the need for ethics and, indeed, Ivan McKee's previous debate on autonomous driving touched on that as well. We are investing £300 million into the Edinburgh and South East Scotland city region, including £60 million towards innovation and investment from the UK Government, which we should acknowledge, which will help to secure a place as the data capital of Europe and to create an environment that will nurture and attract further innovation and investment to Scotland. There is much that I can say about cyber resilience. I am conscious that I have already overreached my time, Presiding Officer. However, that has been a valuable debate and I know that members on all sides are focused on ensuring that in Scotland we take the ethical and informed approach when considering artificial intelligence. I know entirely the concerns that Mr Gibson has raised today and I think that it is important that we acknowledge that as a chamber today and that we are mindful of the impact and workforce of Scotland. I hope that I have assured members that we are already taking steps to strike the correct balance when considering the needs of economic development against our social and ethical values, and the future will bring many opportunities. I hope that we all agree that Scotland is well placed to be a global leader in the development of artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.