Select Committee · Science, Innovation and Technology Committee

Governance of artificial intelligence (AI)

Status: Closed Opened: 20 Oct 2022 Closed: 28 May 2024 17 recommendations 67 conclusions 2 reports

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 …

Clear

Reports

2 reports
Title HC No. Published Items Response
Third Report - Governance of artificial intelligence (AI) HC 38 28 May 2024 62 Responded
Ninth Report - The governance of artificial intelligence: i… HC 1769 31 Aug 2023 22 Responded

Recommendations & Conclusions

4 items
15 Conclusion Third Report - Governance of artificial… Rejected

Announce further financial support for AI regulators, considering an industry levy.

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 …

Government response. The government reiterates its commitment to providing £10m funding for regulators' AI capabilities and £2m to the DRCF. It does not commit to providing further financial support or considering an industry levy, as recommended by the committee.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
25 Recommendation Third Report - Governance of artificial… Rejected

Confirm models tested by AI Safety Institute, testing details, findings, and developer changes.

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, …

Government response. The government rejected providing specific details on which models the AI Safety Institute has tested, the nature of findings, or developer changes. It stated this is often not appropriate due to commercial sensitivity and would be counterproductive to publicise.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
26 Recommendation Third Report - Governance of artificial… Rejected

Confirm models the AI Safety Institute could not access and name refusing developers.

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 …

Government response. The government rejected confirming which models the AI Safety Institute has been unable to access or naming developers who refused access. It stated that identifying specific developers would be counterproductive due to complex, commercially sensitive negotiations.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
32 Conclusion Third Report - Governance of artificial… Rejected

Require robust, independent testing and performance analysis for AI models prior to deployment.

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. The government's response text is a page number/header and does not address the recommendation to require independent testing of AI models for bias prior to deployment.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

Oral evidence sessions

9 sessions
Date Witnesses
13 Dec 2023 Rt Hon Michelle Donelan · Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, Sarah Munby · Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy View ↗
8 Nov 2023 Emran Mian · Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Matt Clifford · AI Safety Summit View ↗
25 Oct 2023 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 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 Coran Darling · DLA Piper, Dr Hayleigh Bosher · Brunel University, Jamie Njoku-Goodwin · UK Music, Paul Fleming · Equity View ↗
29 Mar 2023 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 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 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 Dr Manish Patel · Jiva.ai, Michael Cohen · University of Oxford, Mrs Katherine Holden · techUK, Professor Michael Osborne · University of Oxford and Mind Foundry View ↗

Correspondence

2 letters
DateDirectionTitle
6 Dec 2023 Correspondence from to Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technolog…
16 Nov 2023 From cttee Letter to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology relatin…