Third Report - Governance of artificial intelligence (AI)
- HC No.
- HC 38
- Published
- 28 May 2024
- Items
- 62
- Response
- Response document linked: 1st Special Report – Governance of artificia… Read government response ↗
Select Committee · Science and Technology Committee (Commons)
Governance of artificial intelligence (AI)
Status: Closed
Opened: 20 Oct 2022
Closed: 28 May 2024
24 recommendations
60 conclusions
2 reports
Inquiry scope
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) has increased significantly in recent years. It offers a range of potential benefits such as quicker analysis of large datasets allowing more accurate information, forecasts and predictions, and more personalised public services. However, there are a number of concerns, such as the possibility of biased algorithms, a lack of transparency and unexplained decision-making. The Government is expected to publish a white paper on AI governance later this year to address these issues. The Committee will examine the effectiveness of AI governance and the Government’s proposals.Reports
Ninth Report - The governance of artificial intelligence: interim report
- HC No.
- HC 1769
- Published
- 31 Aug 2023
- Items
- 22
- Response
- Response document linked: First Special Report - The governance of art… Read government response ↗
Recommendations & Conclusions
How to read the colours. These are AI-assisted assessments of the position taken in the published government response. They are not official government labels and do not show whether promised action was delivered.
Definitions for the six response statuses
- Accepted
- Accepts the item, commits to concrete action, or says existing work already addresses it.
- Accepted in Part
- Accepts only part of the item or offers narrower action.
- Acknowledged
- Recognises the issue without making a specific commitment.
- Deferred
- Leaves action to a future process or redirects responsibility elsewhere.
- Not Addressed
- Does not engage with the substance of the item.
- Rejected
- Explicitly declines or disagrees with the item.
- Response status not verified
- Our records do not establish the response status. A missing link or passed expected date does not show that no response was published.
- Response attribution not verified
- A response has not been verified against this item. This is a limitation of our records, not a finding about the government.
Read the published response text for the full context.
Rapid ubiquity and development of AI tools surprising even well-informed observers.
Conclusion · source text
While AI is not a new technology, the rapidly acquired ubiquity of tools such as ChatGPT and the rate of development has come as a surprise to even well-informed observers. We are all now interacting with AI models and tools daily, and we are increasingly aware of these interactions.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
AI as a tool, not sentient machines, guided by human instruction.
Conclusion · source text
Nevertheless, the technology should not be viewed as a form of magic or as something that creates sentient machines capable of self-improvement and independent decisions. It is akin to other technologies: humans instruct a model or tool and use the outputs to inform, assist or augment a range of activities. (Paragraph 16) Benefits
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
AI models demonstrate transformative potential in healthcare diagnostics and professional time-saving.
Conclusion · source text
AI models and tools can transform healthcare provision, by assisting with diagnostics and, perhaps more significantly, freeing up time for the judgement of medical professionals by automating routine processes.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
AI technology offers transformative potential for medical research, drug development, and personalised medicine.
Conclusion · source text
The ability of AI models and tools to process substantial volumes of data, and rapidly identify patterns where human researchers might take months or be unable to, makes it a potentially transformational technology for medical research. Either through the development of new drugs, or the repurposing of existing ones, the technology could reduce the investment required to bring a drug to market; and bring personalised medicine closer to becoming a reality.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
AI tools already provide useful time-saving benefits for education professionals and students.
Conclusion · source text
AI tools are already useful time-savers for education professionals, and whilst reliable data is hard to come by, it seems highly likely that the technology is this generation of students’ calculator or smartphone.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
AI offers benefits for teachers and pupils, but raises assessment questions for coursework.
Conclusion · source text
The benefits for time-pressed teachers using AI models and tools to help prepare lesson plans are clear, and increased availability of personalised learning and tutoring tools could benefit many pupils. However, widespread use of AI raises questions about the nature of assessment, particularly in subjects that rely heavily on coursework.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Prioritise equipping children with digital literacy and critical engagement skills for ubiquitous AI.
Conclusion · source text
Education policy must prioritise equipping children with the skills to succeed in a world where AI is ubiquitous: digital literacy and an ability to engage critically with the information provided by AI models and tools.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Translating AI's wide potential into safe, sustainable reality poses a significant policy challenge.
Conclusion · source text
The wide range of potential applications, and associated benefits, reflects the general- purpose nature of AI. As with previous technological innovations, the challenge for policymakers is translating this potential into reality, in a safe and sustainable way. (Paragraph 40) 36 The governance of artificial intelligence: interim report Twelve Challenges of AI Governance
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Address the twelve outlined AI governance challenges through domestic policy and international engagement.
Conclusion · source text
The Government’s approach to AI governance and regulation should address each of the twelve challenges we have outlined, both through domestic policy and international engagement. (Paragraph 88) The Government approach to AI
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
UK's initial AI regulatory approach risks falling behind the rapid pace of development.
Conclusion · source text
The UK has a long history of technological innovation and regulatory expertise, which can help it forge a distinctive regulatory path on AI. The AI white paper should be welcomed as an initial effort to engage with a complex task. However, the approach outlined is already risking falling behind the pace of development of AI.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
AI governance requires a more developed central coordinating function beyond the sectoral approach.
Conclusion · source text
The UK Government’s proposed approach to AI governance relies heavily on our existing regulatory system, and the promised central support functions. The time required to establish new regulatory bodies means that adopting a sectoral approach, at least initially, is a sensible starting point. We have heard that many regulators are already actively engaged with the implications of AI for their respective remits, both individually and through initiatives such as the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum. However, it is already clear that the resolution of all of the Challenges set out in this report may require a more well-developed central coordinating function.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Conduct a comprehensive gap analysis of UK regulators' capacity and powers for AI implementation.
Recommendation · source text
The AI white paper is right to highlight the importance of regulatory capacity to the successful implementation of its principles. The Government should, as part of its implementation of its proposals, undertake a gap analysis of the UK’s regulators, which considers not only resourcing and capacity, but whether any regulators require new powers to implement and enforce the principles outlined in the AI white paper.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
AI-specific legislation unlikely before late 2025 without inclusion in King's Speech.
Conclusion · source text
The Government is yet to confirm whether AI-specific legislation will be included in the upcoming King’s Speech in November. This new session of Parliament will be the last opportunity before the General Election for the UK to legislate on the governance of AI. Following the Election it is unlikely that new legislation could be enacted until late 2025—more than two years from now and nearly three years from the publication of the white paper.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Introduce a tightly-focussed AI Bill to establish regulator 'due regard' duties promptly.
Recommendation · source text
The Government has said in the AI white paper that it may legislate, at a minimum, to establish ‘due regard’ duties for existing regulators. That commitment alone—in addition to any further requirements that may emerge—suggests that there should be a tightly-focussed AI Bill in the new session of Parliament. Our view is that this would help, not hinder, the Prime Minister’s ambition to position the UK as an AI governance leader. We see a danger that if the UK does not bring in any new statutory regulation for three years it risks the Government’s good intentions being left behind by other legislation—like the EU AI Act—that could become the de facto standard and be hard to displace. (Paragraph 106) The governance of artificial intelligence: interim report 37
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Confirm plans for AI-specific legislation and work undertaken exploring Bill contents.
Recommendation · source text
In its reply to this interim Report, and its response to the AI white paper consultation, the Government should confirm whether AI-specific legislation, such as the introduction of a requirement for regulators to pay due regard to the AI white paper principles, will be introduced in the next Parliament. It should also confirm what work has been undertaken across Government to explore the possible contents of such a Bill.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Confirm Foundation Model Taskforce membership, terms of reference, and pilot projects.
Recommendation · source text
We welcome the establishment of a Foundation Model Taskforce, the appointment of Ian Hogarth as its chair, and the Government’s stated intention for it to take a similar approach to the Vaccines Taskforce. This agile approach is necessary and proportionate to the importance of the issue. The Government should confirm the Task Force’s full membership, terms of reference, and the first tranche of public sector pilot projects, in its reply to this interim Report. (Paragraph 108) The international dimension
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Utilise interim report challenges as basis for global AI safety summit discussions.
Conclusion · source text
The Prime Minister was right to say that AI does not respect national borders, and we welcome the announcement of a global summit on AI safety in London. The challenges highlighted in our interim Report should form the basis for these important international discussions.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Establish forum for like-minded countries to enhance mutual protection against hostile AI actors.
Recommendation · source text
The summit should aim to advance a shared international understanding of the challenges of AI—as well as its opportunities. Invitations to the summit should therefore be extended to as wide a range of countries as possible. Given the importance of AI to our national security there should also be a forum established for like-minded countries who share liberal, democratic values, to be able to develop an enhanced mutual protection against those actors—state and otherwise—who are enemies of these values. (Paragraph 120) Conclusion and next steps
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Implement measures to safely harness AI benefits and provide credible protection from harm.
Conclusion · source text
There is as little consensus about how AI will evolve as there has been excitement and hyperbole following its rise to ubiquity. AI cannot be un-invented. It has and will continue to change the way we live our lives. Humans must take measures to safely harness the benefits of the technology and encourage future innovations, whilst providing credible protection against harm.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Pausing AI development is not deliverable, yet new regulation remains essential.
Conclusion · source text
Some observers have called for the development of certain types of AI models and tools to be paused, allowing global regulatory and governance frameworks to catch up. We are unconvinced that such a pause is deliverable. When AI leaders say that new regulation is essential, their calls cannot responsibly be ignored—although it should also be remembered that is not unknown for those who have secured an advantageous position to seek to defend it against market insurgents through regulation.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Address the twelve Challenges of AI Governance set out for policymakers.
Conclusion · source text
The twelve Challenges of AI Governance which we have set out must be addressed by policymakers in all jurisdictions. Different administrations may choose different ways to do this. (Paragraph 123) 38 The governance of artificial intelligence: interim report
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Accelerate establishment of comprehensive AI governance regime including necessary statutory measures.
Recommendation · source text
We believe that the UK’s depth of expertise in AI and the disciplines which contribute to it—the vibrant and competitive developer and content industry that the UK is home to; and the UK’s longstanding reputation for developing trustworthy and innovative regulation—provides a major opportunity for the UK to be one of the go-to places in the world for the development and deployment of AI. But that opportunity is time-limited. Without a serious, rapid and effective effort to establish the right governance frameworks—and to ensure a leading role in international initiatives—other jurisdictions will steal a march and the frameworks that they lay down may become the default even if they are less effective than what the UK can offer. We urge the Government to accelerate, not to pause, the establishment of a governance regime for AI, including whatever statutory measures as may be needed. (Paragraph 124) The governance of artificial intelligence: interim report 39
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Ensure General Election does not stall efforts to increase public trust in AI
Conclusion · source text
With a General Election approaching we have sought to make this Report futureproof and believe that our conclusions and recommendations will remain applicable to future Administrations. It is important that the timing of the General Election does not stall necessary efforts by the Government, developers and deployers of AI to increase the level of public trust in a technology that has become a central part of our everyday lives. (Paragraph 8) The case for AI
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Appropriate AI governance can deliver significant benefits for public services and economic growth
Conclusion · source text
If governed appropriately, we believe that AI can deliver on its significant promise, to complement and augment human activity. The Government has articulated the case for AI: better public services, high quality jobs and a new era of economic growth driven by advances in AI capabilities.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Realising AI's societal and economic benefits hinges critically on securing public trust
Conclusion · source text
The Government is right to emphasise the potential societal and economic benefits to be won from the strategic deployment of AI. However, as our interim Report highlighted, the challenges are as clear as the potential benefits, and these benefits cannot be realised without public trust in the technology.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Ensure the AI regulatory framework effectively addresses the Twelve Challenges of AI Governance.
Recommendation · source text
The Government should certainly make the case for AI but should equally ensure that its regulatory framework addresses the Twelve Challenges of AI Governance that we have identified in our interim Report; and offer potential solutions to in this Report. (Paragraph 24) AI-specific legislation
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Introduce new AI-specific legislation if current regulatory approaches prove insufficient to address harms.
Conclusion · source text
The next Government should stand ready to introduce new AI-specific legislation, should an approach based on regulatory activity, existing legislation and voluntary commitments by leading developers prove insufficient to address current and potential future harms associated with the technology.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Provide further consideration of specific criteria for triggering a decision to introduce AI legislation.
Recommendation · source text
The Government should in its response to this Report provide further consideration of the criteria on which a decision to legislate will be triggered, including which model performance indicators, training requirements such as compute power or other factors will be considered.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Publish quarterly reviews before Parliament on AI regulation efficacy and legislative trigger criteria.
Conclusion · source text
The next Government should commit to laying before Parliament quarterly reviews of the efficacy of its current approach to AI regulation, including a summary of technological developments related to its stated criteria for triggering a decision to legislate, and an assessment whether these criteria have been met. (Paragraph 35) The role of regulators
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Insufficient time remains to implement necessary AI regulatory power updates this Parliament.
Conclusion · source text
We welcome confirmation that the Government will undertake a regulatory gap analysis to determine whether regulators require new powers to respond properly to Governance of artificial intelligence (AI) 53 the growing use of AI, as recommended in our interim Report. However, as the end of this Parliament approaches, there is no longer time to bring forward any updates to current regulatory remits and powers, should they be discovered to be necessary. This could constrain the ability of regulators to properly implement the Government’s AI principles and undermine the UK’s overall approach.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Publish AI regulatory gap analysis results and enact necessary legislation swiftly after the election.
Conclusion · source text
The next Government should conduct and publish the results its regulatory gap analysis as soon as is practicable. If the analysis identifies any legislation required to close regulatory gaps, this should be brought forward in time for it to be enacted as soon as possible after the General Election.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
General-purpose AI creates regulatory overlap, blurring responsibilities and causing widespread confusion.
Conclusion · source text
The general-purpose nature of AI will, in some instances, lead to regulatory overlap, and a potential blurring of responsibilities. This could create confusion on the part of consumers, developers and deployers of the technology, as well as regulators themselves.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Empower the AI steering committee to guide regulators on navigating overlapping remits.
Conclusion · source text
The steering committee that the Government has said it will establish should be empowered to provide guidance and, where necessary, direction to help regulators navigate any overlapping remits, whilst respecting the independence of the UK’s regulators.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Identify areas for closer regulatory co-operation on AI and propose co-ordination mechanisms.
Recommendation · source text
The regulatory gap analysis being undertaken by the Government should identify, in consultation with the relevant regulators and co-ordinating entities such as the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum and the AI and Digital Regulations Service, areas where new AI models and tools will necessitate closer regulatory co-operation, given the extent to which some uses for AI, and some of the challenges these can present— such as accelerating existing biases—are covered by more than one regulator. The gap analysis should also put forward suggestions for delivering this co-ordination, including joint investigations, a streamlined process for regulatory referrals, and enhanced levels of information sharing.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Sectoral regulators face significant capacity challenges due to increasing prevalence of AI.
Conclusion · source text
The increasing prevalence and general-purpose nature of AI will create challenges for the UK’s sectoral regulators, however expert they may be. The AI challenge can be summed up in a single word: capacity. Ofcom, for example, is combining implementation of a broad new suite of powers conferred on it by the Online Safety Act 2023, with formulating a comprehensive response to AI’s deployment across its wider remit. Others will be required to undertake resource-intensive investigations and it is vital that they are able, and empowered, to do so. All will be required to pay greater attention to the outputs of AI tools in their sectors, whilst paying due regard to existing innovation and growth-related objectives.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Announced £10 million for AI regulators remains clearly insufficient for the challenge.
Conclusion · source text
The announced £10 million to support regulators in responding to the growing prevalence of AI is clearly insufficient to meet the challenge, particularly when compared to the UK revenues of leading AI developers.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Announce further financial support for AI regulators, considering an industry levy.
Conclusion · source text
The next Government must announce further financial support, agreed in consultation with regulators, that is commensurate to the scale of the task. It should also consider the benefits of a one-off or recurring industry levy, that would allow regulators to supplement or replace support from the Exchequer for their AI-related activities. (Paragraph 57) 54 Governance of artificial intelligence (AI) AI in the public and private sectors
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
AI offers significant potential to increase productivity across public and private sectors.
Conclusion · source text
AI can be used to increase productivity and augment the contributions of human workers in both the public and private sectors. We welcome the establishment of i.AI and the focus on AI deployment set out in the public sector productivity programme; as well as initiatives to increase business adoption such as the AI and Digital Hub.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Drive safe adoption of AI in the public sector via i.AI and Ministers.
Conclusion · source text
The next Government should drive safe adoption of AI in the public sector via i.AI, the National Science and Technology Council and designated lead departmental Ministers for AI.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Confirm i.AI public sector pilot list, selection criteria, evaluation, and future plans.
Recommendation · source text
In its response to this Report, the Government should confirm the full list of public sector pilots currently being led or supported by i.AI, the criteria that determined i.AI pilot project selections, how it intends to evaluate their success and decide whether to roll them out more widely, and what other pilots are planned for the remainder of
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Undertake AI capability assessment for civil service and publish detailed public sector action plan.
Recommendation · source text
i.AI should undertake an assessment of the existing civil service workforce’s AI capability, identify areas of the public sector that would benefit the most from the use of AI and where value for money can be delivered, set out how potential risks associated with its use should be mitigated, and publish a detailed AI public sector action plan. Progress against these should be reported to Parliament on an annual basis and through regular written or oral statements by Ministers.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Extend Algorithmic Transparency Standard to all public bodies from January 2025.
Conclusion · source text
The requirement for Government departments to use the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard should be extended to all public bodies sponsored by Government departments, from 1 January 2025. (Paragraph 77) The AI Safety Institute
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
AI Safety Institute swiftly established with an impressive and growing expert team.
Conclusion · source text
It is a credit to the commitment of those involved that the AI Safety Institute has been swiftly established, with an impressive and growing team of researchers and technical experts recruited from leading developers and academic institutions.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Continue empowering AI Safety Institute to recruit necessary talent for its mission.
Conclusion · source text
The next Government should continue to empower the Institute to recruit the talent it needs.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
AI Safety Institute plays decisive role in shaping UK’s AI regulatory approach.
Conclusion · source text
Although the Institute is not a regulator, it has undeniably played a decisive role in shaping the UK’s regulatory approach to AI. We commend the work of the Institute and its researchers in facilitating and informing the ongoing international conversation about AI governance.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
AI Safety Institute's limited access to unreleased models undermines safety testing capabilities.
Conclusion · source text
However, we are concerned by suggestions that the Institute has been unable to access as-yet unreleased AI models to perform the pre-deployment safety testing it was set up to undertake. If true, this would undermine the delivery of the Institute’s mission and its ability to increase public trust in the technology.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Confirm models tested by AI Safety Institute, testing details, findings, and developer changes.
Recommendation · source text
In its response to this Report, the Government should confirm which models the AI Safety Institute has undertaken pre-deployment safety testing on, the nature of the Governance of artificial intelligence (AI) 55 testing, a summary of the findings, whether any changes were made by the model’s developers as a result, and whether any developers were asked to make changes but declined to do so.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Confirm models the AI Safety Institute could not access and name refusing developers.
Recommendation · source text
The Government should also confirm which models the Institute has been unable to secure access to, and the reason for this. If any developers have refused access— which would represent a contravention of the reported agreement at the November 2023 Summit at Bletchley Park—the Government should name them and detail their justification for doing so. (Paragraph 92) The international dimension
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
US and EU pursue distinct AI governance for competitive regulatory advantage.
Conclusion · source text
In our interim Report we highlighted moves by both the United States and European Union to develop their own approaches to AI governance. The subsequent White House Executive Order and the EU AI Act are clear attempts to secure competitive regulatory advantage.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
UK's distinct AI approach significant despite potential US and EU regulatory effects.
Conclusion · source text
It is true that the size of both the United States and European Union markets may mean that ‘the Washington effect’ and ‘Brussels effect’—referring to the de facto standardising of global regulatory approaches, potentially to the detriment of the UK’s distinct approach—will apply to AI governance. Nevertheless, the distinctiveness of the UK’s approach and the success of the AI Safety Summit have underlined the significance of its current and future role.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
US and EU AI governance approaches reveal downsides in scope and implementation.
Conclusion · source text
Both the US and EU approaches to AI governance have their downsides. The scope of the former only imposes a requirement on Federal bodies and relies on voluntary commitments from leading developers. The latter has been criticised for its top- down, prescriptive approach and the potential for uneven implementation across different member states.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Apply lessons learned from other jurisdictions to UK's distinct AI governance approach.
Conclusion · source text
The UK is entitled to pursue an approach that considers developments in other jurisdictions but does not unthinkingly replicate them. However, where there are lessons to be learned from other jurisdictions, the next Government should be willing to apply them.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Continue international AI agenda and swiftly establish domestic framework addressing governance challenges.
Conclusion · source text
The UK has a long history of encouraging technological innovation by offering a stable, expert regulatory environment coupled with clear industry standards. The current Government is therefore right to have encouraged the growth of a strong AI sector in the UK, engaged with leading developers through the AI Safety Institute and future Summits, and participated in international standards fora. This international agenda should be continued by the next Government, and coupled with the swift establishment of a domestic framework that sufficiently addresses the Twelve Challenges of AI Governance highlighted in our interim Report. (Paragraph 133) Twelve Challenges of AI Governance revisited
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Require robust, independent testing and performance analysis for AI models prior to deployment.
Recommendation · source text
AI can entrench and accelerate existing biases. The current Government, future administrations and sectoral regulators should require deployers of AI models and tools to submit them to robust, independent testing and performance analysis prior to deployment. (Paragraph 140) 56 Governance of artificial intelligence (AI)
Government response AI summary
The government's response is boilerplate text and does not address the recommendation to require robust, independent testing of AI models for bias prior to deployment.
Read full response →
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Require AI model developers to summarise bias mitigation and report output bias levels.
Recommendation · source text
Model developers and deployers should be required to summarise what steps they have taken to account for bias in datasets used to train models, and to statistically report on the levels of bias present in outputs produced using AI tools. This data should be routinely disclosed in a similar way to company pay gap reporting.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Ensure AI deployers balance privacy protection with the technology's potential benefits
Recommendation · source text
Regulators and deployers should ensure that the right balance is maintained between the protection of privacy and pursuing the potential benefits of AI. Determining this balance will depend on the context in which the technology is being deployed, with reference to the relevant laws and regulations.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Publish detailed guidance for AI deployers to balance privacy protection and benefits
Recommendation · source text
Sectoral regulators should publish detailed guidance to help deployers of AI strike the balance between the protection of privacy and securing the technology’s intended benefits. In instances where regulators determine that this balance has not been met, or where the relevant laws or regulatory requirements have not been met, it should impose sanctions or prohibit the use of AI models or tools.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Government amendment to Criminal Justice Bill addresses AI-assisted misrepresentation
Conclusion · source text
We welcome the Government amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill as a necessary step towards ensuring the UK’s legal framework reflects the current state of technological development and protects citizens, primarily women and girls, from the consequences of AI-assisted misrepresentation, including deepfake pornography.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Introduce similar AI misrepresentation provisions if current Bill not passed by Parliament
Conclusion · source text
Should the Bill’s remaining stages fail to be completed prior to the dissolution of Parliament, the next Government must introduce similar provisions as soon as is practicable after the General Election.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Safeguard General Election integrity from deepfake content and sanction failing platforms
Conclusion · source text
The Government and regulatory authorities, informed by the work of the Defending Democracy Taskforce, should safeguard the integrity of the upcoming General Election campaign in its approach to the online platforms that host deepfake content which seeks to exert a malign influence on the democratic process. If these platforms are found to have been slow to remove such content, or to have facilitated its spread, regulators must take stringent enforcement action—including holding senior leadership personally liable and imposing financial sanctions.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Launch cross-Government campaign informing public about AI-assisted misrepresentation risks
Conclusion · source text
A cross-Government public awareness campaign should be launched to inform the public about the growing prevalence of AI-assisted misrepresentation, the potential consequences, what the Government is doing to address the Challenge, and what steps individuals can take to protect themselves online.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Dominance of leading AI developers stifles free and open competition in the market
Conclusion · source text
At the so-called ‘frontier’ of AI a small group of leading developers are responsible for and accruing significant benefits from the development of advanced models and tools—thanks in part to their ability to access the necessary training data. This potential dominance is arguably to the detriment of free and open competition.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Require CMA to identify and address abuses of market power by AI developers
Conclusion · source text
As the regulator responsible for promoting competitive markets and tackling anti- competitive behaviour, the CMA should identify abuses of market power and use its powers to stop them. This could take the form of levying fines or requiring the restructuring of proposed mergers. (Paragraph 160) Governance of artificial intelligence (AI) 57
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
High-quality input data is crucial for effective AI models and tools
Conclusion · source text
AI models and tools rely on access to high-quality input data. The phrase ‘garbage in, garbage out’ is not new, but it is particularly applicable to AI.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Mandate human review and verification of AI-assisted decisions affecting individuals
Conclusion · source text
The potential for human error and bias notwithstanding, deployers should not solely rely on outputs produced with AI tools to determine their decision-making, particularly in areas that could affect the rights and standing of the individuals or entities concerned, such as insurance decisions or recruitment. These algorithmic decisions should always be reviewed and verified by trained humans, and those affected should have the right to challenge these decisions—a process that should also be human-centred.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Facilitate UK AI startups' access to anonymised public datasets through a National Data Bank.
Recommendation · source text
The Government and future administrations should support the emergence of more AI startups in the UK by ensuring they can access the high-quality datasets they need to innovate. This could involve facilitating access to anonymised public data from data.gov.uk, the NHS and BBC via a National Data Bank, subject to appropriate safeguards.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Insufficient details provided on access to dedicated AI Research Resource and supercomputer cluster.
Conclusion · source text
We welcome the Government’s moves to establish a dedicated AI Research Resource and a cluster of supercomputers but are concerned that it has yet to set out further details of how researchers and startups will be able to access the compute they need to maximise the potential benefits of AI across society and the economy.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Publish AI Research Resource action plan and undertake National Compute Cluster feasibility study.
Recommendation · source text
The Government, or its successor administration, should publish an action plan and proposed deliverables for both the AI Research Resource and its cluster of supercomputers, and further details of the terms under which researchers and innovative startups will be able to access them. It should also undertake a feasibility study into the establishment of a National Compute Cluster that could be made available to researchers and startups.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Adopt regulatory framework acknowledging inherent limitations in AI model explainability.
Conclusion · source text
The Black Box Challenge is one of the most paradigm-shifting consequences of AI, as it upends our well-established reliance on explainability and understanding. Given the complexity of currently available and in all likelihood future models, the starting point should be an acknowledgement how little we can understand about how many AI models produce their outputs, an acceptance that new ways of thinking will be required, and a regulatory approach that accounts for the impossibility of total explainability.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Prioritise testing and verifying AI model outputs while investigating their decision-making processes.
Conclusion · source text
The regulators charged with implementing the Government’s high-level AI governance principles should, in their approach to these models and tools, prioritise testing and verifying their outputs, as well seeking to establish—whilst accepting the difficulty of doing so with absolute certainty—how they arrived at them.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
AI marketplace requires diversity to support both open and closed-source models.
Conclusion · source text
The open-source approach has underpinned many technological breakthroughs, including the Internet and AI. Whilst some providers of products and services, such as AI models and their applications, will want to keep elements of their offerings proprietary, a healthy AI marketplace should be sufficiently diverse to support both ‘open’ and ‘closed’ options. The volume of investment flowing into AI developers of all types of models, rather than one or the other, is evidence of this market diversity. (Paragraph 175) 58 Governance of artificial intelligence (AI)
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Utilise best-suited AI models for public sector deployment when procuring solutions.
Recommendation · source text
When procuring AI models for deployment in the public sector the Government and public bodies should utilise those best suited to the task.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Ensure law enforcement and regulators are adequately resourced for harmful AI content response.
Recommendation · source text
The Government should in its response to this Report tell us how it will ensure law enforcement and regulators are adequately resourced to respond to the growing use of AI models and tools to generate and disseminate harmful and illegal content.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Unsustainable copyright framework for AI training allows free use, requiring urgent reform.
Conclusion · source text
The growing volume of litigation relating to alleged use of works protected by copyright to train AI models and tools, and the value of high-quality data needed to train future models, has underlined the need for a sustainable framework that acknowledges the inevitable trade-offs and establishes clear, enforceable rules of the road. The status quo allows developers to potentially benefit from the unlimited, free use of copyrighted material, whilst negotiations are stalled.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Conclude discussions on copyrighted works for AI training and agree implementable framework.
Recommendation · source text
The current Government, or its successor administration, should ensure that discussions regarding the use of copyrighted works to train and run AI models are concluded and an implementable approach agreed. It seems inevitable that this will involve the agreement of a financial settlement for past infringements by AI developers, the negotiation of a licensing framework to govern future uses, and in all likelihood the establishment of a new authority to operationalise the agreement. If this cannot be achieved through a voluntary approach, it should be enforced by the Government, or its successor administration, in co-operation with its international partners.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Publish cross-government guidance on liability for harmful AI uses, establishing it via statute where appropriate.
Conclusion · source text
Nobody who uses AI to inflict harm should be exempted from the consequences, whether they are a developer, deployer, or intermediary. The next Government together with sectoral regulators publish guidance on where liability for harmful uses of AI falls under existing law. This should be a cross-Government undertaking. Sectoral regulators should ensure that guidance on liability for AI-related harms is made available to developers and deployers as and when it is required. Future administrations and regulators should also, where appropriate, establish liability via statute rather than simply relying on jurisprudence.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Increase prioritisation of Lifetime Skills Guarantee and digital Skills Bootcamps for AI skills.
Conclusion · source text
AI is already changing the nature of work, and as the technology evolves this process is likely to accelerate, placing some jobs at risk. At the same time, there are productivity benefits to be won, provided people are equipped with the skills to fruitfully utilise AI. This is a process that should begin in the classroom, and through greater prioritisation of initiatives such as the Lifetime Skills Guarantee and digital Skills Bootcamps.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Commission a review into AI's future skills and employment consequences, including retraining for automation.
Recommendation · source text
The current Government, or its successor, should commission a review into the possible future skills and employment consequences of AI, along the lines of the 2017 Taylor Review of modern working practices which examined the landscape, suggested ideas for debate and has resulted in legislative change. It should also in its response to this Report tell us how it will ensure workers whose jobs are at risk of automation will be able to retrain and acquire the skills necessary to change careers. (Paragraph 194) Governance of artificial intelligence (AI) 59
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park welcomed, momentum should be maintained.
Conclusion · source text
We welcome the organisation of the AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park and commend the Government on bringing many key actors together. We look forward to subsequent Summits and hope that the consensus and momentum delivered at Bletchley Park can be maintained.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Harmonisation should not be the sole aim of international AI governance discussions.
Conclusion · source text
However, looking beyond the AI safety discussion, we do not believe that harmonisation for harmonisation’s sake should be the end goal of international AI governance discussions. A degree of distinction between different regulatory regimes is, in our view, inevitable. Such distinction may be motivated by geopolitics, but it may also simply be a case of healthy economic competition.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Establish international dialogue and best practice sharing at future AI Safety Summits.
Conclusion · source text
Future AI Safety Summits must focus on the establishment of international dialogue mechanisms to address current, medium- and longer-term safety risks presented by the growing use of AI; and the sharing of best practice to ensure its potential benefits are realised in all jurisdictions. This should not set us on the road to a global AI governance regime—we are unconvinced that such a prospect is either realistic or desirable.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Continue government engagement with experts on high-impact, low-probability existential AI risks.
Conclusion · source text
The debate over the existential risk—or lack of it—posed by the increasing prevalence of AI has attracted significant attention. However, the Government’s initial assessment, that such existential risks are high impact but low probability, appears to be accurate. Nevertheless, given the potential consequences should risks highlighted by the AI Safety Institute and other researchers be realised, it is right for Governments to continue to engage with experts on the issue.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Focus AI regulatory activity on present impacts; assign existential risk to national security apparatus.
Recommendation · source text
When implementing the principles set out in the AI White Paper regulatory activity should be focused on here-and-now impacts. Assessing and responding to existential risk should primarily be the responsibility of the UK’s national security apparatus, supported by the AI Safety Institute.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Conduct international discussions on increased existential AI risk at AI Safety Summits.
Conclusion · source text
Should the acuteness of existential AI risk be judged to have increased, discussions regarding the implications and possible response should take place in international fora, such as AI Safety Summits. (Paragraph 211) 60 Governance of artificial intelligence (AI)
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
Oral evidence sessions
On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.
| Date | Session and witnesses | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 13 Dec 2023 |
Work for the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology
Rt Hon Michelle Donelan · Department for Science, Innovation and Technology,
Sarah Munby · Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
|
View ↗ |
| 8 Nov 2023 |
Governance of artificial intelligence (AI)
Emran Mian · Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities,
Matt Clifford · AI Safety Summit
|
View ↗ |
| 25 Oct 2023 |
Governance of AI
Dame Melanie Dawes · Ofcom,
Jessica Rusu · Financial Conduct Authority,
John Edwards · Information Commissioner's Office,
Kate Jones · Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum,
Will Hayter · Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
|
View ↗ |
| 24 May 2023 |
Governance of artificial intelligence (AI)
Dr Marion Oswald · The Alan Turing Institute and Northumbria University,
Dr Tony Mansfield · National Physical Laboratory,
Lindsey Chiswick · Metropolitan Police,
Michael Birtwistle · Ada Lovelace Institute
|
View ↗ |
| 10 May 2023 |
Governance of artificial intelligence (AI)
Coran Darling · DLA Piper,
Dr Hayleigh Bosher · Brunel University,
Jamie Njoku-Goodwin · UK Music,
Paul Fleming · Equity
|
View ↗ |
| 29 Mar 2023 |
Oral evidence session
Daisy Christodoulou · No More Marking,
Dr Matthew Glanville · The International Baccalaureate,
Joel Kenyon · Dormers Wells High School, Southall, London,
Professor Rose Luckin · University College London
|
View ↗ |
| 8 Mar 2023 |
Oral evidence session
Professor Andrew Hopkins · Exscientia,
Professor Delmiro Fernandez-Reyes · University College London,
Professor Mihaela van der Schaar · Cambridge Centre for AI in Medicine, Cambridge University
|
View ↗ |
| 22 Feb 2023 |
Oral evidence session
Adrian Joseph · BT Group,
Hugh Milward · Microsoft,
Jen Gennai · Google,
Professor Dame Wendy Hall · University of Southampton,
Professor Sir Nigel Shadbolt · Jesus College, University of Oxford
|
View ↗ |
| 25 Jan 2023 |
Panel One; Panel Two
Dr Manish Patel · Jiva.ai,
Michael Cohen · University of Oxford,
Mrs Katherine Holden · techUK,
Professor Michael Osborne · University of Oxford and Mind Foundry
|
View ↗ |
Who gave evidence
On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.
| Witness | Organisation | Sessions |
|---|---|---|
| Adrian Joseph · Chief Data and AI Officer | BT Group | 1 |
| Coran Darling · Associate, Intellectual Property and Technology | DLA Piper | 1 |
| Daisy Christodoulou · Director of Education | No More Marking | 1 |
| Dame Melanie Dawes · Chief Executive | Ofcom | 1 |
| Dr Hayleigh Bosher · Senior Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law | Brunel University | 1 |
| Dr Manish Patel · CEO | Jiva.ai | 1 |
| Dr Marion Oswald · Senior Research Associate for Safe and Ethical AI and Associate Professor in Law | The Alan Turing Institute and Northumbria University | 1 |
| Dr Matthew Glanville · Head of Assessment Principles and Practice | The International Baccalaureate | 1 |
| Dr Tony Mansfield · Principal Research Scientist | National Physical Laboratory | 1 |
| Emran Mian · Director General, Regeneration | Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities | 1 |
| Hugh Milward · UK Vice President of Corporate Affairs | Microsoft | 1 |
| Jamie Njoku-Goodwin · Chief Executive | UK Music | 1 |
| Jen Gennai · Director, Responsible Innovation | 1 | |
| Jessica Rusu · Chief Data, Information and Intelligence Officer | Financial Conduct Authority | 1 |
| Joel Kenyon · Science Teacher and Community Cohesion Lead | Dormers Wells High School, Southall, London | 1 |
| John Edwards · Information Commissioner | Information Commissioner's Office | 1 |
| Kate Jones · Chief Executive | Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum | 1 |
| Lindsey Chiswick · Director of Intelligence | Metropolitan Police | 1 |
| Matt Clifford · Prime Minister’s representative | AI Safety Summit | 1 |
| Michael Birtwistle · Associate Director | Ada Lovelace Institute | 1 |
| Michael Cohen · DPhil candidate in Engineering Science | University of Oxford | 1 |
| Mrs Katherine Holden · Head of Data Analytics, AI and Digital Identity | techUK | 1 |
| Paul Fleming · General Secretary | Equity | 1 |
| Professor Andrew Hopkins · Chief Executive | Exscientia | 1 |
| Professor Dame Wendy Hall · Regius Professor of Computer Science | University of Southampton | 1 |
| Professor Delmiro Fernandez-Reyes · Professor of Biomedical Computing | University College London | 1 |
| Professor Michael Osborne · Professor of Machine Learning and co-founder | University of Oxford and Mind Foundry | 1 |
| Professor Mihaela van der Schaar · John Humphrey Plummer Professor of Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence and Medicine, and Director | Cambridge Centre for AI in Medicine, Cambridge University | 1 |
| Professor Rose Luckin · Professor of Learner Centred Design | University College London | 1 |
| Professor Sir Nigel Shadbolt · Professorial Research Fellow in Computer Science and Principal | Jesus College, University of Oxford | 1 |
| Rt Hon Michelle Donelan · Secretary of State | Department for Science, Innovation and Technology | 1 |
| Sarah Munby · Permanent Secretary | Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy | 1 |
| Will Hayter · Senior Director, Digital Markets Unit | Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) | 1 |
Correspondence
On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.