It's a good question. Let me put it this way: In the last 30 years, how many questions asked in the House were written by a caucus staff member and then handed to an MP? I don't know the statistic on that, but I suspect it's fairly significant. Motions as well might be written by staff. Then it's the MP who's submitting it. What we're doing is swapping out a staff person who may be doing it for AI that is doing it. We don't necessarily declare in a speech when someone gets up and....
As far as I can recall, the rules in most Westminster parliaments are that you're not supposed to read your speeches except for your inaugural speech, and yet that rule is broken practically all the time, I believe. Staff and even individuals are writing their speeches and getting up and reading them. There was an interesting case recently in the Welsh Senedd, the parliament there. Someone was using those new Meta glasses and, they think, reading his speech from his glasses. It looked as though he was talking off the cuff when in fact it was a speech that had been written by him, someone else or AI; we don't know.
This is another issue that will probably be coming up. How do you merge AI with this new sort of gadget technology? How do you ensure that the debates being held in Parliament are authentic and human, based on a discussion and are not just trying to ensure...? There will always be a need for talking points to be put into speeches, but in the end, it should be a debate. It should be a discussion. How do you ensure that it becomes one that is still very much driven by humans and not AI?