Source · Select Committees · Science and Technology Committee (Commons)
Third Report - Governance of artificial intelligence (AI)
Science and Technology Committee (Commons)
HC 38
Published 28 May 2024
Source-linked government response
1st Special Report – Governance of artificial intelligence (AI): Government Response · published 10 Jan 2025
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.
Recommendations & Conclusions
1
Conclusion
Ensure General Election does not stall efforts to increase public trust in AI
Conclusion
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
View Details →
2
Conclusion
Para 22
Appropriate AI governance can deliver significant benefits for public services and economic growth
Conclusion
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
View Details →
3
Conclusion
Para 23
Realising AI's societal and economic benefits hinges critically on securing public trust
Conclusion
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
View Details →
4
Recommendation
Ensure the AI regulatory framework effectively addresses the Twelve Challenges of AI Governance.
Recommendation
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
View Details →
5
Conclusion
Para 33
Introduce new AI-specific legislation if current regulatory approaches prove insufficient to address harms.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
6
Recommendation
Para 34
Provide further consideration of specific criteria for triggering a decision to introduce AI legislation.
Recommendation
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
View Details →
7
Conclusion
Publish quarterly reviews before Parliament on AI regulation efficacy and legislative trigger criteria.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
8
Conclusion
Para 40
Insufficient time remains to implement necessary AI regulatory power updates this Parliament.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
9
Conclusion
Para 41
Publish AI regulatory gap analysis results and enact necessary legislation swiftly after the election.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
10
Conclusion
Para 45
General-purpose AI creates regulatory overlap, blurring responsibilities and causing widespread confusion.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
11
Conclusion
Para 45
Empower the AI steering committee to guide regulators on navigating overlapping remits.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
12
Recommendation
Para 46
Identify areas for closer regulatory co-operation on AI and propose co-ordination mechanisms.
Recommendation
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
View Details →
13
Conclusion
Para 55
Sectoral regulators face significant capacity challenges due to increasing prevalence of AI.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
14
Conclusion
Para 56
Announced £10 million for AI regulators remains clearly insufficient for the challenge.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
15
Conclusion
Announce further financial support for AI regulators, considering an industry levy.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
16
Conclusion
Para 73
AI offers significant potential to increase productivity across public and private sectors.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
17
Conclusion
Para 74
Drive safe adoption of AI in the public sector via i.AI and Ministers.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
18
Recommendation
Confirm i.AI public sector pilot list, selection criteria, evaluation, and future plans.
Recommendation
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
View Details →
19
Recommendation
Para 76
Undertake AI capability assessment for civil service and publish detailed public sector action plan.
Recommendation
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
View Details →
20
Conclusion
Extend Algorithmic Transparency Standard to all public bodies from January 2025.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
21
Conclusion
Para 80
AI Safety Institute swiftly established with an impressive and growing expert team.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
22
Conclusion
Para 80
Continue empowering AI Safety Institute to recruit necessary talent for its mission.
Conclusion
The next Government should continue to empower the Institute to recruit the talent it needs.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
View Details →
23
Conclusion
Para 89
AI Safety Institute plays decisive role in shaping UK’s AI regulatory approach.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
24
Conclusion
Para 90
AI Safety Institute's limited access to unreleased models undermines safety testing capabilities.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
25
Recommendation
Para 91
Confirm models tested by AI Safety Institute, testing details, findings, and developer changes.
Recommendation
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
View Details →
26
Recommendation
Confirm models the AI Safety Institute could not access and name refusing developers.
Recommendation
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
View Details →
27
Conclusion
Para 129
US and EU pursue distinct AI governance for competitive regulatory advantage.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
28
Conclusion
Para 130
UK's distinct AI approach significant despite potential US and EU regulatory effects.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
29
Conclusion
Para 131
US and EU AI governance approaches reveal downsides in scope and implementation.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
30
Conclusion
Para 132
Apply lessons learned from other jurisdictions to UK's distinct AI governance approach.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
31
Conclusion
Continue international AI agenda and swiftly establish domestic framework addressing governance challenges.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
32
Recommendation
Not Addressed
Require robust, independent testing and performance analysis for AI models prior to deployment.
Recommendation
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)
Read the full government response
56 Governance of artificial intelligence (AI)
Government response · AI-generated 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.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
View Details →
33
Recommendation
Para 141
Require AI model developers to summarise bias mitigation and report output bias levels.
Recommendation
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
View Details →
34
Recommendation
Para 145
Ensure AI deployers balance privacy protection with the technology's potential benefits
Recommendation
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
View Details →
35
Recommendation
Para 146
Publish detailed guidance for AI deployers to balance privacy protection and benefits
Recommendation
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
View Details →
36
Conclusion
Para 150
Government amendment to Criminal Justice Bill addresses AI-assisted misrepresentation
Conclusion
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
View Details →
37
Conclusion
Para 150
Introduce similar AI misrepresentation provisions if current Bill not passed by Parliament
Conclusion
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
View Details →
38
Conclusion
Para 154
Safeguard General Election integrity from deepfake content and sanction failing platforms
Conclusion
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
View Details →
39
Conclusion
Para 155
Launch cross-Government campaign informing public about AI-assisted misrepresentation risks
Conclusion
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
View Details →
40
Conclusion
Para 159
Dominance of leading AI developers stifles free and open competition in the market
Conclusion
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
View Details →
41
Conclusion
Require CMA to identify and address abuses of market power by AI developers
Conclusion
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
View Details →
42
Conclusion
Para 161
High-quality input data is crucial for effective AI models and tools
Conclusion
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
View Details →
43
Conclusion
Para 161
Mandate human review and verification of AI-assisted decisions affecting individuals
Conclusion
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
View Details →
44
Recommendation
Para 162
Facilitate UK AI startups' access to anonymised public datasets through a National Data Bank.
Recommendation
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
View Details →
45
Conclusion
Para 165
Insufficient details provided on access to dedicated AI Research Resource and supercomputer cluster.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
46
Recommendation
Para 166
Publish AI Research Resource action plan and undertake National Compute Cluster feasibility study.
Recommendation
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
View Details →
47
Conclusion
Para 170
Adopt regulatory framework acknowledging inherent limitations in AI model explainability.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
48
Conclusion
Para 171
Prioritise testing and verifying AI model outputs while investigating their decision-making processes.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
49
Conclusion
AI marketplace requires diversity to support both open and closed-source models.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
50
Recommendation
Para 176
Utilise best-suited AI models for public sector deployment when procuring solutions.
Recommendation
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
View Details →
51
Recommendation
Para 180
Ensure law enforcement and regulators are adequately resourced for harmful AI content response.
Recommendation
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
View Details →
52
Conclusion
Para 185
Unsustainable copyright framework for AI training allows free use, requiring urgent reform.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
53
Recommendation
Para 186
Conclude discussions on copyrighted works for AI training and agree implementable framework.
Recommendation
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
View Details →
54
Conclusion
Para 189
Publish cross-government guidance on liability for harmful AI uses, establishing it via statute where appropriate.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
55
Conclusion
Para 193
Increase prioritisation of Lifetime Skills Guarantee and digital Skills Bootcamps for AI skills.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
56
Recommendation
Commission a review into AI's future skills and employment consequences, including retraining for automation.
Recommendation
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
View Details →
57
Conclusion
Para 202
AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park welcomed, momentum should be maintained.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
58
Conclusion
Para 203
Harmonisation should not be the sole aim of international AI governance discussions.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
59
Conclusion
Para 204
Establish international dialogue and best practice sharing at future AI Safety Summits.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
60
Conclusion
Para 209
Continue government engagement with experts on high-impact, low-probability existential AI risks.
Conclusion
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
View Details →
61
Recommendation
Para 210
Focus AI regulatory activity on present impacts; assign existential risk to national security apparatus.
Recommendation
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
View Details →
62
Conclusion
Conduct international discussions on increased existential AI risk at AI Safety Summits.
Conclusion
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
View Details →