The rapid rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has sparked a crucial conversation, particularly among the generation growing up alongside it. In Ireland, a groundbreaking report sheds light on the perspectives of young people regarding AI, revealing not just their concerns but also their insightful recommendations for navigating this evolving landscape. This isn’t just about abstract technology; it’s about how AI is shaping their education, their social interactions, their understanding of the world, and even their emotional well-being. The core message is clear: young people are not passive recipients of AI; they want a voice in its development and a hand in shaping its ethical use, demonstrating a maturity and foresight that demands attention from policymakers and educators alike.
This report, a collaborative effort between the National Youth Council of Ireland, the Ombudsman for Children’s Office, and the Insight Research Centre for Data Analytics at DCU, isn’t based on assumptions. Instead, it leverages a powerful methodology called “AI Youth Juries” – a process inspired by citizens’ assemblies. Imagine a group of young people, from all corners of Ireland and across diverse backgrounds, coming together to explore, discuss, and deliberate on the various facets of AI. This isn’t a casual chat; it’s a structured process that allows them to articulate their experiences, fears, and hopes, culminating in concrete recommendations. They engaged with a wide range of themes, from the environmental footprint of AI to the subtle influence of algorithms on their mental health, offering a comprehensive and deeply human perspective on a technology often discussed in purely technical terms.
One of the most striking concerns raised by these young jurors revolves around the pervasive issue of misinformation. They recognize that in a world awash with digital content, AI can amplify false narratives, especially concerning sensitive topics like diet, mental health, and politics. They understand that AI-driven recommendation engines can create echo chambers and that targeted advertising can exploit their vulnerabilities. Their call for action is direct and pragmatic: limit targeted advertising to children, mandate clear disclosure of paid promotions within AI systems, and strengthen oversight of the algorithms that shape what they see and hear. This shows a deep understanding of the subtle power AI wields in shaping perceptions and a desire for greater transparency and accountability to protect themselves and their peers from manipulation.
Beyond the digital realm, their concerns extend to the very infrastructure that powers AI. The young people expressed deep anxieties about the environmental impact of data centers, those colossal facilities that house the machines running our digital world. They demand transparency in the energy and water consumption of these sites, highlighting an admirable environmental consciousness that connects technological advancement with ecological responsibility. Equally poignant are their concerns about the use of AI chatbots for emotional support and mental health advice. While they acknowledge the potential for these tools, they also recognize the inherent risks. Their recommendation to prohibit AI chatbots from providing health advice and to include continuous safety warnings like “this is not a real person” underscores a profound awareness of the nuances of human connection and the dangers of blurring the lines between artificial and genuine empathy. They are not advocating for a complete rejection of these tools, but rather a responsible and cautious approach, with clear boundaries and safeguards.
In the realm of education, the youth juries shine a spotlight on a growing inequity: the “widening digital divide” in access to high-quality AI tools. They envision a future where everyone has the opportunity to engage with and understand AI, proposing a publicly-owned, ethical, and free AI chatbot for students. Crucially, they emphasize that such a tool should never replace critical thinking or act as a substitute for a human therapist, reinforcing their belief in the irreplaceable value of human intellect and emotional support. Their calls for national guidelines for AI use in schools, a state-led AI literacy campaign, and compulsory AI education through schools and youth work demonstrate a proactive and forward-thinking approach. They recognize that understanding AI is no longer an optional skill but a fundamental requirement for navigating the modern world, and they want structured, reliable education, not just a haphazard process of self-discovery. As 16-year-old jury member Nathan Geszczak eloquently put it, the assumption that all young people are “digital natives” who inherently understand new technologies is a myth. They need “far more support, including practical education and accessible information we can trust.”
Ultimately, this report serves as a powerful testament to the wisdom and agency of young people. As Dr. Niall Muldoon, the Ombudsman for Children, aptly states, young people are often the most exposed to the potential harms of AI, and their voices must not only be heard but acted upon. They are not just reporting on abstract technology; they are sharing their personal experiences, anxieties, and aspirations in a rapidly changing world. Their calls for national guidelines, tailored regulations for AI “companions,” robust age verification, and comprehensive AI education are not merely suggestions; they are urgent appeals for a future where AI serves humanity ethically and responsibly. It’s a compelling reminder that the future of AI is not solely in the hands of developers and policymakers, but also in the hands of the generation that will live most intimately with its consequences—a generation that is ready and willing to shape that future for the better.