Records whose title is actually about this topic. Use a country filter if the list is still too broad.
Records
Question· writtenPQ 784asked
Ireland · Dáil Éireann · 9 December 2025
784. Deputy Barry Heneghan asked the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality if Tusla has established a governance structure to oversee the introduction of emerging technologies including automation and artificial intelligence and the expected timeline for this structure to become fully operational; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [69622/25]
Question· writtenPQ 783asked
Ireland · Dáil Éireann · 9 December 2025
783. Deputy Barry Heneghan asked the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality the current status of the development of Tusla's Responsible Use Framework for artificial intelligence and automation technologies; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [69621/25]
Question· writtenPQ 137asked
Ireland · Dáil Éireann · 9 December 2025
137. Deputy Barry Ward asked the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment if his Department has made any assessments into future demand for energy from data centres, particularly in the context of artificial intelligence and the related need for extra storage; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [70042/25]
Question· Written questionHL HL12777answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 9 December 2025
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the potential for artificial intelligence to support national efforts to reduce loneliness; and what steps they are taking, if any, to develop or pilot artificial intelligence enabled inter
Question· Written questionUIN 98648answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 9 December 2025
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, what steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to create a cross-department, nation-wide AI strategy in the next 12 months.
Question· Written questionUIN 98649answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 9 December 2025
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, what steps her Department has taken to identify sectors of the economy in which AI should not replace human productivity or experience.
Question· Written questionUIN 98651answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 9 December 2025
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, if her Department will convene a cross-government summit with key tech companies and trade unions to discuss the future impact of AI and ASI on jobs, the economy and society.
Question· Written questionUIN 98531answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 9 December 2025
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, whether she has considered the potential merits of the mitigation of potential future risks from non-human, autonomous AI systems which may evade human oversight and control.
Question· Written questionUIN 98393answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 9 December 2025
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, pursuant to the answer of 9 December to Question 96093, what steps the Government is taking to safeguard individuals from non-sexually explicit deepfakes, digital impersonation, and the
Question· Written questionHL HL12822answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 9 December 2025
To ask His Majesty's Government what safeguards and governance arrangements are in place for NHS patient data when accessed or processed by artificial intelligence systems.
Question· Written questionUIN 98404answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 9 December 2025
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment her Department has made of the adequacy of the current use of AI in schools.
Question· Written questionHL HL12778answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 9 December 2025
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to develop a cross-department strategy on the use of artificial intelligence for children; and what steps they are taking to ensure that the UK leads in the use of safe and socially positive artificial i
Bill· HRH.R. 6529 (119th)reported
United States · United States Congress · 9 December 2025
Bill· HRH.R. 6530 (119th)referred
United States · United States Congress · 9 December 2025
Record· PetitionPetition 753909rejected
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 8 December 2025
To ban AI brainrot in the contery because it is annoying and it it is all kids are talking talking about and it's is distracting kids education
So we can be free of AI brainrot
Record· PetitionPetition 753899rejected
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 8 December 2025
Require music streaming platforms operating in the UK, including Spotify and Apple Music, to clearly label when a track is AI-generated or substantially AI-assisted. We also want platforms to provide a user setting that allows listeners to block AI-generated music from being played or recommended.
AI-generated music is increasingly difficult to distinguish from human-made recordings. Without clear labelling, listeners cannot make informed choices about what they are hearing, supporting, or sharing.
Transparent tagging will protect consumers, improve trust in streaming services, and help ensure fair recognition of human artists and songwriters.
We also want an optional toggle that enables users to exclude AI-generated tracks from autoplay, radio, and algorithmic recommendations.
Question· Written questionUIN 97969answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 8 December 2025
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the level of economic loss from AI-enabled fraud and scams.
Question· Written questionHL HL12767answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 8 December 2025
To ask His Majesty's Government, following the cancellation of trains in response to an AI-generated image appearing to show damage to a bridge in Lancaster, what steps they are taking to respond to and prevent the suspension of rail services as a result
Record· PetitionPetition 753745closed
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 7 December 2025
Make it illegal for jobs to be replaced by artificial intelligence and automation technology. The government needs to develop and pass strict employment and discrimination laws for the use of artificial intelligence in the workplace.
We want to avoid mass job losses. Some roles are at risk with little or no alternative employment opportunities available.
Record· PetitionPetition 753619closed
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 5 December 2025
Make 'ghosting' job applicants illegal after an interview. Job applications are time consuming for applicants. Some companies interview applicants and then provide no response. Companies should be required to provide interview feedback within a reasonable time frame
Make it law that companies provide constructive interview feedback within a reasonable time frame (e.g. 45 days, as recent law coming in Ontario, Canada). Feedback should be personalised (not generic AI generated). This will help applicants understand the reasons behind them not being successful in their application, and ultimately help the UK employment market.
Record· PetitionPetition 753599rejected
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 5 December 2025
Please discuss at length the impact that artificial intelligence will take peoples jobs and what steps we can take to steer the future of the UK to a positive outcome for people.
I am concerned of the destabilising impact mass unemployment has on a society. AI driverless cars could be the start of replacing all drivers, AI legal advisors replace graduate entry law jobs etc, AI lawmakers could debate and replace politicians.
Make AI a tier 1 political issue that is discussed at length.
This might be our last chance to use democracy to regulate the AI companies before a handful of individuals decided for the rest of us.
Question· Written questionUIN 97577answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 5 December 2025
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what steps his Department is taking to develop standards to help with procurement and encourage AI adoption amongst SMEs.
Question· Written questionUIN 97580answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 5 December 2025
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, what steps the Government is taking to showcase departmental AI pilots, including (a) which tools are being used, (b) what safeguards are in place, and (c) what has succeeded or failed;
Question· Written questionUIN 97575answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 5 December 2025
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, what steps her Department is taking to support SMEs to (a) implement cybersecurity measures and (b) procure AI systems securely; and whether she will make an assessment of the potential
Question· Written questionUIN 97578answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 5 December 2025
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what comparative assessment she has made of disparities in AI training and support between (a) state and private schools, and (b) high-performing and underperforming schools; and what steps she is taking to add
Question· Written questionUIN 97574answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 5 December 2025
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, what steps her Department is taking to lead international efforts to establish agreed standards for AI safety and ethics in fraud prevention; and what assessment she has made of the pot
Question· Written questionUIN 97576answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 5 December 2025
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, what assessment her Department has made of the level of risk to UK competitiveness from underinvestment in (a) AI and (b) defence technology; and what steps she is taking to ensure that
Question· Written questionUIN 97579answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 5 December 2025
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, what support her Department is providing to enable local authorities to commission AI skills training for SMEs and community groups in their areas.
Question· Written questionUIN 97541answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 5 December 2025
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, whether her Department plans to introduce technological standards on the use of AI.
Record· PetitionPetition 753437closed
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 4 December 2025
We ask the Government to urgently review and regulate AI to protect jobs. Rapid AI advances could cause major unemployment across many sectors. We want an independent assessment of risks, safeguards for workers, and plans for reskilling so AI benefits society responsibly.
Without regulation, we believe the rapid growth of AI could replace millions of workers, causing widespread unemployment, economic inequality, and social disruption. We urge the Government to introduce clear rules, invest in reskilling and retraining programs, and ensure AI is deployed to complement human work rather than replace it, protecting jobs, livelihoods, and the long-term stability of the economy.
Question· Written questionUIN 97228answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 4 December 2025
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what steps his Department is taking to improve the accuracy of automated decision-making tools used in benefit administration.
Question· Written questionUIN 97481answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 4 December 2025
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if her department has considered the use of AI to help tackle the backlog of asylum applications.
Question· Written questionUIN 97167answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 4 December 2025
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, what assessment has been made of the potential merits of introducing legislation to regulate designed in bias in AI programmes such as ChatGPT, GROK, CoPilot and others.
Bill· SS. 3354 (119th)referred
United States · United States Congress · 4 December 2025
Quashing Unwanted and Interruptive Electronic Telecommunications Act or the QUIET Act This bill establishes a disclosure requirement for robocalls that use artificial intelligence (AI) to emulate a human being and increases forfeiture and fine amounts for certain violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). (The TCPA prohibits certain telemarketing calls made without the recipient’s consent and using specified automated technologies.) Specifically, any robocall that uses AI to emulate a human being must include a disclosure at the beginning of the message indicating that AI is being used. Under the bill, robocalls are defined as calls made or text messages sent (1) using automatic dialing technology, or (2) using an artificially generated message or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Calls or texts that are made or sent using equipment that requires substantial human intervention are excluded. Further, the bill doubles the maximum forfeiture penalty and criminal fine that may be imposed for certain violations of the TCPA involving the use of AI to impersonate an individual or entity with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value. This provision applies to violations that occur after the bill’s enactment.
Bill· HRH.R. 6461 (119th)reported
United States · United States Congress · 4 December 2025
Resources for Evaluating and Documenting AI Models or the READ AI Models Act This bill requires the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop a customizable template for information to accompany artificial intelligence (AI) models. Specifically, NIST must initiate a pilot program to establish a structured template that may be used to document information about an artificial intelligence model and any associated data, such as the model’s name, the developer, and the cutoff date for the model’s training data. The template must be modular to enable users to adopt and complete various sections to suit their needs and intended audience. NIST must also provide technical guidelines to accompany the template that incorporate consensus-based standards and industry best practices, as appropriate. In developing these materials, NIST must collaborate with and conduct periodic outreach to various stakeholders, including private sector entities, international standards organizations, and institutions of higher education. NIST must publish and solicit public comment on a draft of the template and guidelines. Within 12 months of the start of the pilot program, NIST must publish the finished products and report to Congress with an assessment of the program.
Record· PetitionPetition 753197rejected
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 3 December 2025
Hold a House of Commons debate on introducing a statutory AI framework. The debate should draw on relevant parliamentary work on AI to help shape a clear and consistent national approach to regulating AI across the UK.
The UK has no statutory AI law. Government relies on existing rules, regulators and the AI Security Institute. AI systems already influence decisions in work, education, housing, finance and services. A Commons debate is needed to consider whether the UK should move from a voluntary approach to a clear and accountable statutory framework.
Question· writtenPQ 271asked
Ireland · Dáil Éireann · 3 December 2025
271. Deputy James Geoghegan asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science if he will provide an update on the establishment of Ireland’s first AI factory antenna; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [68264/25]
Question· Written questionUIN 96656answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 3 December 2025
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, what information her Department holds on the proportion of chatbots deployed in the UK that use search-based functionality as part of their responses; and what assessment she has made o
Question· Written questionUIN 97010answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 3 December 2025
To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, what assessment she has made of the potential impact of the growth in the availability of open source Chinese AI platforms on the UK.
Question· Written questionHL HL12651answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 3 December 2025
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the risks posed by the development of superintelligent AI.
Question· Written questionHL HL12610answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 3 December 2025
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to allow accredited artificial intelligence assistants to perform simple administrative tasks in the NHS.
Question· Written questionHL HL12612answered
United Kingdom · UK Parliament · 3 December 2025
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to protect children in private messaging spaces from computer-generated child sexual abuse material.
Bill· Rapport d'information sans missionDLR5L17N53295open
France · National Assembly · 3 December 2025
Bill· SS. 3336 (119th)referred
United States · United States Congress · 3 December 2025
Bill· SS. 3339 (119th)referred
United States · United States Congress · 3 December 2025
Bill· HRH.R. 6402 (119th)referred
United States · United States Congress · 3 December 2025
Question· Question écrite11356answered
France · National Assembly · 2 December 2025
M. Jiovanny William interroge M. le garde des sceaux, ministre de la justice, sur les mesures mises en œuvre à la Martinique depuis l'entrée en vigueur de la loi n° 2025-532 du 13 juin 2025 visant à sortir la France du piège du narcotrafic. Au cours de l'année 2025, plus de 22 tonnes de produits stupéfiants ont été saisis à la Martinique, lors de huit interventions en mer selon la JIRS. Ces records inquiètent. Par ailleurs, M. le député sollicite de nouveau l'attention de M. le ministre afin d'adapter la procédure et faciliter l'action de la JIRS lorsque ces interpellations se produisent en mer. Pour rappel, des amendements déposés en ce sens n'ont pas été adoptés, alors qu'ils proposaient une solution à la demande du corps des magistrats, permettant de recourir à des moyens de télécommunication audiovisuelle à tous les stades de la procédure, après avoir recueilli l'accord exprès du prévenu, le cas échéant en présence de son conseil, selon les modalités prévues aux premier et sixième alinéas de l'article 706-71 du CPC. Pour rappel, le recours étendu à la visioconférence est déjà le principe à Mayotte, à La Réunion à Saint-Martin et à Basse-Terre, mais il ne l'est pas à la Martinique. Il souhaite que la lutte contre le grand banditisme et le narcotrafic se fasse avec pragmatisme et efficacité et lui demande ses intentions à ce sujet.
Question· Question écrite11333open
France · National Assembly · 2 December 2025
M. Arthur Delaporte attire l'attention de Mme la ministre déléguée auprès du ministre de l'économie, des finances et de la souveraineté industrielle, énergétique et numérique, chargée de l'intelligence artificielle et du numérique, sur la multiplication des arnaques sentimentales en ligne qui touchent aujourd'hui des milliers de personnes en France. M. le député a été alerté par plusieurs associations : le nombre de victimes explose et pourrait atteindre plusieurs dizaines de milliers. Ces escroqueries s'appuient sur des méthodes de manipulation de plus en plus sophistiquées, allant jusqu'à l'usage de technologies comme les deepfakes et provoquent des dommages humains majeurs : dépressions, isolement, ruptures familiales, pertes financières très importantes. De nombreuses familles témoignent de leur impuissance face à un proche sous emprise, faute de relais institutionnels adaptés. À ce jour, aucune campagne publique de prévention n'a été lancée et aucune structure d'écoute ou d'accompagnement dédiée n'existe. Il lui demande quelles actions le Gouvernement entend engager pour reconnaître pleinement l'ampleur de ce phénomène, mettre enfin en place une prévention nationale à la hauteur des enjeux et offrir aux victimes comme à leurs proches un accompagnement structuré et accessible.
Question· Question écrite11289answered
France · National Assembly · 2 December 2025
M. Marc Chavent interroge Mme la ministre des armées et des anciens combattants sur l'adaptation des capacités blindées françaises face aux ruptures technologiques désormais observables dans le domaine des chars de bataille à l'étranger. Alors que la France ne prévoit l'entrée en service d'un char de nouvelle génération qu'à l'horizon 2040-2045 dans le cadre du programme franco-allemand Main Ground Combat System (MGCS), plusieurs puissances accélèrent déjà le déploiement de plateformes intégrant les technologies que la France envisage encore au stade de démonstrateurs. Il apparaît en particulier préoccupant que l'US Army doive disposer, dès 2026, de prototypes opérationnels du M1E3 Abrams, successeur allégé et profondément remanié de l'Abrams, intégrant une architecture modulaire ouverte, des moyens de lutte intégrée contre les drones, une réduction de signature, une protection active avancée et une numérisation poussée du champ de bataille. Les travaux menés autour du démonstrateur AbramsX préfigurent ainsi un char pensé comme un nœud d'un système de combat collaboratif, doté d'une tourelle automatisée, d'algorithmes d'intelligence artificielle pour la détection et la priorisation des menaces et préparé pour l'intégration de munitions évoluées et d'effets connectés, y compris face aux frappes verticales et aux drones rôdeurs. Parallèlement, d'autres nations s'engagent dans une course à l'innovation dans le combat blindé lourd : l'Allemagne met en avant le KF51 Panther, conçu sur fonds propres et fondé sur une architecture NGVA ouverte, des capteurs panoramiques à 360° et des modules « mission pod » pouvant emporter missiles rôdeurs et essaims de drones ; Israël a commencé à déployer le Merkava Barak, présenté comme un char de 5ème génération avec un casque de réalité augmentée de type IronVision , une large infrastructure de capteurs, un partage de données temps réel et système de protection active multicouche ; la Corée du Sud prépare, avec le futur K3, une nouvelle génération de char intégrant également des capacités avancées de combat collaboratif et de lutte anti drones. Ces évolutions laissent craindre un décrochage capacitaire de la France si les choix en matière de modernisation des parcs actuels et de calendrier des programmes futurs ne permettent pas de suivre le rythme imposé par ces acteurs majeurs. Dans ce contexte, la modernisation du char Leclerc au standard XLR, destinée à porter 200 exemplaires à l'horizon 2035, revêt un caractère déterminant pour combler l'intervalle avant l'arrivée d'un système MGCS pleinement opérationnel. Ce standard doit non seulement intégrer le char dans l'architecture SCORPION (SICS, radio CONTACT, combat collaboratif), mais aussi renforcer sa survivabilité par l'apport de capteurs optroniques numérisés, de capacités d'intelligence artificielle pour la détection, la classification et l'engagement des cibles, ainsi que par la mise en place de moyens de protection active, qu'il s'agisse de solutions soft kill (brouillage, leurres, fumigènes intelligents) ou hard kill destinées à intercepter projectiles, missiles antichars et munitions larguées par drones. Face à la prolifération des drones tactiques, des munitions rôdeuses et des frappes verticales observées dans les conflits récents, l'interrogation porte sur le niveau exact d'ambition retenu pour la protection active du Leclerc XLR, la couverture 360° par capteurs (radars, optroniques, détecteurs de départ de coups) et la résilience du char dans un environnement électromagnétique fortement contesté. Se pose également la question de l'articulation entre ces évolutions à court et moyen termes et le cahier des charges du MGCS, en particulier s'agissant de l'architecture ouverte, de la lutte anti drones intégrée, de la réduction de la signature et de l'interopérabilité avec les systèmes sans pilote, afin d'éviter une rupture capacitaire durable au moment où certains partenaires ou compétiteurs disposeront déjà de démonstrateurs avancés mis en service. Dans ce contexte, il lui demande, d'une part, de préciser comment la rénovation du Leclerc au standard XLR et les suites capacitaires envisagées permettront de faire face aux menaces que constituent les drones tactiques, les munitions rôdeuses et les frappes verticales, tant en matière de capteurs que de systèmes de protection active hard kill et soft kill et de couverture 360° dans un spectre électromagnétique dégradé. Il souhaiterait, d'autre part, connaître la manière dont ces exigences opérationnelles sont prises en compte dans le calendrier, la gouvernance industrielle et la feuille de route technologique du MGCS, afin de garantir que l'armée de terre ne subisse pas un retard stratégique durable face aux puissances qui engagent déjà leurs chars de nouvelle génération. Il lui demande enfin de bien vouloir détailler les principaux jalons, les choix technico-opérationnels retenus et la doctrine d'emploi associée, qui doivent permettre de restaurer la crédibilité des forces blindées françaises dans les conflits de haute intensité et d'assurer que la France demeure au niveau des standards internationaux en matière de combat terrestre lourd.
Question· writtenPQ 725asked
Ireland · Dáil Éireann · 2 December 2025
725. Deputy Malcolm Byrne asked the Minister for Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht the type of training provided to staff within his Department in the use of, or understanding of artificial intelligence; if a programme is planned for all staff on their obligations under the EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [67469/25]