Source · Select Committees · Science, Innovation and Technology Committee
Third Report - Governance of artificial intelligence (AI)
Science, Innovation and Technology Committee
HC 38
Published 28 May 2024
Government response
1st Special Report – Governance of artificial intelligence (AI): Government Response · published 10 Jan 2025
Recommendations & Conclusions
18
Recommendation
Acknowledged
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 …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government lists several i.AI pilot projects such as 'Caddy' and 'Redbox', directing to the i.AI website for further details. However, it does not provide the specific selection criteria, evaluation methods, or plans for other pilots as requested in the report, stating "further updates on this will be shared."
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
View Details →
20
Conclusion
Acknowledged
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
Government Response Summary
The government has made the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS) mandatory for central government departments and a priority group of 85 arm’s-length bodies. It states an intent to extend it to the broader public sector over time and will continue to explore options for further embedding and enforcing its use, but does not commit to extending it to all sponsored public bodies by 1 January 2025.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
View Details →
22
Conclusion
Acknowledged
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.
Government Response Summary
The government intends to put the AI Safety Institute (AISI) on a statutory footing, which it believes would strengthen its role. However, the response does not provide specific details on how it will continue to empower the Institute to recruit the talent it needs.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
View Details →
27
Conclusion
Acknowledged
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 …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government reiterates its commitment to making the UK a world leader in AI and states it will continue to engage closely with international partners as it further develops its approach to AI governance, including legislative proposals.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
View Details →
28
Conclusion
Acknowledged
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 …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government reaffirmed its commitment to making the UK a world leader in AI and will continue to engage with international partners, including the US and EU, to develop its AI governance approach and legislative proposals. It highlighted its ongoing international leadership through summits and the AI Standards Hub.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
View Details →
29
Conclusion
Acknowledged
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- …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government did not directly address the committee's specific observations on the downsides of US and EU AI governance. Instead, it reiterated its commitment to making the UK an AI leader, continuing international engagement, and developing its own AI governance approach and legislative proposals, highlighting existing initiatives.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
View Details →
30
Conclusion
Acknowledged
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.
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government stated its commitment to continuing engagement with international partners, including the US and EU, to further develop its AI governance approach and legislative proposals, aligning with the principle of learning from other jurisdictions while maintaining a distinct UK approach.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
View Details →
31
Conclusion
Acknowledged
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 …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government affirmed its commitment to making the UK an AI leader, continuing its international agenda through summits and the AI Safety Institute, and engaging with partners to develop its AI governance approach and legislative proposals, broadly aligning with the recommendation for a domestic framework.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
View Details →
48
Conclusion
Acknowledged
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 …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government provided a general statement committing to defending AI openness, supporting the open-source ecosystem, and taking steps to improve AI safety, but did not detail specific actions or priorities for regulators regarding testing and verifying AI outputs.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
View Details →
49
Conclusion
Acknowledged
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 …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government expresses commitment to defending the importance of openness and supporting the UK’s open-source ecosystem while also taking steps to improve AI safety.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
View Details →