Paul Murphy: AI office under Enterprise is a dangerous gamble
Paul Murphy speaks during a compressed debate on amendments to the AI Bill, arguing the proposed AI office is subordinate to the Department of Enterprise and warning this frames AI primarily as an enterprise issue. He says that structure and mandate risk promoting unchecked AI development despite serious social and environmental harms.
Paul Murphy argues the AI office is not independent and that locating it within the Department of Enterprise reveals the government mindset: treat AI as an enterprise priority. He criticises a framework that prioritises industry growth over public safety and democratic oversight.
Murphy highlights concerns about the office's mandate and Section 9, and expects the government's likely rejection of amendments meant to address independence. He says the enterprise framing affects both the location and the remit of the office.
He warns that, in his view, AI is presently producing net harm: accelerating genocide, climate change, mental health crises, job displacement, misogyny and hate. While he acknowledges limited positive uses such as weather forecasting and healthcare, he says the overall impact is negative.
Speaking after a long committee process compressed into a short debate, Murphy frames this intervention as a final chance to influence the Bill. He connects the AI office debate to other policy choices he views as undermining climate targets, using a vivid bonfire metaphor to describe cumulative policy damage.
Main point
Paul Murphy argues the AI office is not independent and that locating it within the Department of Enterprise reveals the government mindset: treat AI as an enterprise priority. He criticises a framework that prioritises industry growth over public safety and democratic oversight.
Independence and mandate
Murphy highlights concerns about the office's mandate and Section 9, and expects the government's likely rejection of amendments meant to address independence. He says the enterprise framing affects both the location and the remit of the office.
Broader consequences
He warns that, in his view, AI is presently producing net harm: accelerating genocide, climate change, mental health crises, job displacement, misogyny and hate. While he acknowledges limited positive uses such as weather forecasting and healthcare, he says the overall impact is negative.
Context and urgency
Speaking after a long committee process compressed into a short debate, Murphy frames this intervention as a final chance to influence the Bill. He connects the AI office debate to other policy choices he views as undermining climate targets, using a vivid bonfire metaphor to describe cumulative policy damage.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Other speeches
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
Aidan Farrelly
Aidan Farrelly: Rushed Aviation Law Threatens Climate Duty
Brendan Smith
Brendan Smith: Urgent call for Cavan after-school support
Mary Lou McDonald
Mary Lou McDonald: Millions Face Energy Hikes While Government Stands By
Diarmuid Wilson
Diarmuid Wilson: Government Absent at Naval Cadet Graduation
Martin Daly
Martin Daly: Demands action on €8m Roscommon rehab delay
Brendan Smith
Brendan Smith Questions Child Benefit Administration
Transcript
To be honest I didn't intend to speak on these amendments, I was going to wait until later but this is what happens when you squeeze a very substantial debate which has gone over a long period of time which should happen in a committee room into two hours, invariably it turns into second stage speeches, that's what happens, because it's your only last chance to have a say on it. And I just, you know, this is for me the third leg of a bonfire, bonfires have legs, whatever, the kind of wooden structures that go around a serious bonfire, the third one of those in one evening of burning up our climate targets, the other two being much more obvious in terms of the LNG and the passenger cap in Dublin airport. But I think this is a part of it, and just in terms of the kind of section that we're dealing with here, I think the fundamental problem, and this is what some of the amendments attempt to address, and I'm assuming that the Minister is going to reject them all, but is the fact that the AI office is not independent, it's subordinate to the Department of Enterprise. And even the location of the office, subordinate to the Department of Enterprise, tells us everything that we need to know which is then fleshed out in terms of the mandate of the AI office and so on, which is that the mindset of the government in relation to AI is that this is an enterprise issue and it's overwhelmingly viewed through that lens, that this is a train that's moving or it's already moved and we all need to get on board and all the companies need to be doing, we have to educate all our young people in using AI. That's the whole mindset. And I really fundamentally disagree with that mindset as my colleagues on the AI committee would know. I think in general, where we're currently standing, AI is a force for bad, not a force for good in the world. It's accelerating genocide, it's accelerating climate change, it's accelerating mental health crisis, it's beginning to accelerate significant job loss, job displacement, I think it's eroding workers' autonomy for those workers who still have jobs, it is driving misogyny, it's driving hate. I don't deny some discrete positive applications that we've heard about in terms of weather forecasting or in terms of healthcare and so on, but I think as a whole, any objective look at how this technology, the impact of this technology currently is that it is a negative thing. And yet I think that what we're seeing in terms of the structure and we'll get to it in terms of the mandate, hopefully in terms of Section 9, is green for go, go, go, go, everything we can do to support, promote AI and very much seen through an enterprise frame, which I think is very, very problematic.