Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking, if
any, in response to the increasing sophistication of artificial
intelligence software and its subsequent use by pupils in
secondary schools, particularly in creative subjects.
(CB)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my
name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest as a working
teacher in a state secondary school in north London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Education () (Con)
My Lords, AI has the potential to transform society. We must
harness the potential benefits, including reducing workload and
improving accessibility, while confronting the risks to trust,
privacy and security. We are committed to pupils building
knowledge and skills so that they can take advantage of the
opportunities that AI creates, including in creative subjects.
Since our reforms to GCSEs and A-levels, most assessments are
exam based, where pupils are assessed under strict conditions
with no internet access.
(CB)
I thank the Minister for her response. There is a lot of
anecdotal evidence at the moment which suggests that students are
using AI for everything from essays and poetry to university
applications and, rather more surprisingly, visual arts subjects.
Just before Christmas, one of my product design A-level students
came up to me and showed me some designs that he had done. He had
taken a cardboard model, photographed it, put it into a free
piece of software, put in three different parameters and had
received within minutes 20 high-resolution designs, all original,
that were not A-level but degree level. The current discussion
seems to be very much about—
Noble Lords
Question!
(CB)
Sorry! At the moment this is about plagiarism and fighting the
software. When do the Government plan to meet education
professionals and the exam boards to design a new curriculum to
embrace this new opportunity rather than fight it?
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question and his reflections. The
Government are already engaging with the education sector on
these issues. I will meet the head of Ofqual next week. Guidance
has also recently been produced for universities on this. The
spirit of the noble Lord’s question, which is that we must seize
this opportunity, is absolutely a key part of our focus.
(LD)
My Lords, this Question clearly concerns a very powerful new
generative, probabilistic type of artificial intelligence, which
we ought to encourage in terms of creativity but not of cheating
or deception. Does the Question not demonstrate the limitations
of the Government’s online digital and media education strategy?
Why is there nothing in the Online Safety Bill on this?
(Con)
Elements of the Online Safety Bill will touch on this, but, as
the noble Lord understands very well, this is much broader than
online safety. I push back hard on his assertion of a lack of
ambition in the Government’s strategy. This is a central part of
the Prime Minister-chaired National Science and Technology
Council and is one of the top five priorities within it.
(Con)
My Lords, I refer my noble friend and the whole House to the
report published this week by the Communications and Digital
Select Committee on the future of creative industries. What plans
do the Government have to improve careers advice about the
lucrative careers in the creative industries that require a blend
of digital and creative skills?
(Con)
I take this opportunity to celebrate our extraordinarily
successful and innovative creative industries. The Government are
doing a great deal in relation to careers advice, including
beginning careers advice in primary school, which I know is dear
to the hearts of many noble Lords.
(Lab)
My Lords, when the Government are encouraging discussion about
artificial intelligence in schools, will they make sure that they
balance the undoubted advantages of AI with a warning about the
most serious disadvantage of artificial intelligence? It does not
lack creativity, it does not lack imagination, it does not lack
knowledge, but it lacks empathy. A powerful tool that has
knowledge, creativity, imagination and, potentially, instruction
but lacks empathy is a hugely dangerous tool in the wrong
hands.
(Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. AI lacks empathy and emotion.
I think the human brain will always be more creative. It changes
the skills that we need to equip all of us—our young people, in
particular—with in terms of the ability to distinguish fact from
fiction and how to apply knowledge and critical thinking.
The (CB)
My Lords, the positive opportunities of AI are to be welcomed,
but there is a huge concern, dealt with in detail in the
excellent report on the creative industries that was referred to
by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, about the effect of
potential text and data-mining exemptions to IP law on creative
workers, including writers and musicians. Will the Government
rethink this proposal and properly consult creative workers about
this?
(Con)
This whole area throws up enormous issues in terms of copyright
and intellectual property, of which this is one example. I know
that colleagues in the Office for Artificial Intelligence are
considering these issues in detail.
(LD)
Will the Minister take the time to make sure that people
understand the difference between the various types of technology
and particularly assistive technology? Assistive technology may
be something that some people need for life, not just through
their education, and they should probably start using it earlier
than we do. Will the Government make sure that teachers and
educationalists know the difference?
(Con)
I suggest that teachers and educationalists do know the
difference. The big change that we are seeing is the development
of these LLMs—large language models—and other types of AI.
However, I think that particularly for people with special
educational needs, whether children or adults, this could really
unlock their education in a way we have not seen previously.
of Cotes (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her answer because she has set out
opportunities for pupils, particularly for those with special
needs. She mentioned the Prime Minister’s National Science and
Technology Council. Does she agree that the responsible use of AI
in schools would set up our young people for the workplaces of
the future because AI is with us, whether we like it or not?
(Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. The AI genie is out of the
bottle, and it is how we manage the risk and capitalise on the
opportunity. We are aiming to do that in our schools and
universities. We already have a programme for creating 1,000 new
AI PhDs through centres for doctoral training as well as
opportunities for addressing the lack of diversity in the UK AI
market.
of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we are encouraged to hear the Minister speak in such
positive terms about AI, but returning to the original Question
asked by the noble Lord, , is she concerned about
fairness of access to technology that may be affecting the way
young people are assessed? Not all young people will have the
same access to these technologies, and it may be that not all
schools are applying advice on this issue consistently.
(Con)
The noble Baroness raises two different points. On fairness of
access to technology, obviously the Government are working very
hard and are committed to making sure that those building blocks,
in terms of really high-quality wi-fi access, et cetera, are
available across all our schools.
(Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the noble Lord, , made a declaration of
interest that he is a working teacher in a state school in north
London. Is the Minister aware that if I were a working teacher in
a state school in north Ayrshire it would not be very easy for me
to attend the House of Lords? Is that not one of the reasons why
more than half the Members of this House are from London? Is that
not wrong for a legislative assembly which is meant to represent
the whole United Kingdom?
(Con)
I am not sure of the link to the Question unless the noble Lord
is suggesting that at some point a chatbot might replace our
Scottish colleagues.
(LD)
My Lords, I take advantage of this moment to remind the House of
my interests, which I should have declared.
