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
7
Conclusion
Deferred
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 …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government welcomes the committee's findings on the need for AI safety legislation and states its proposal to establish legislation for powerful AI models, along with an intention to consult on these proposals. However, it does not address the specific recommendation for quarterly parliamentary reviews of AI regulation efficacy or criteria.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
View Details →
9
Conclusion
Deferred
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 …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government does not commit to conducting and publishing a specific regulatory gap analysis, instead affirming its strategy to rely on existing expert regulators. It highlights ongoing funding (£10m to boost AI capabilities for regulators, £2m for DRCF's AI and Digital Hub) and introduces the new Regulatory Innovation Office (RIO) to continuously inform the government of regulatory barriers.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
View Details →
24
Conclusion
Deferred
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 …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government stated the AI Safety Institute (AISI) has tested models both before and after deployment and is actively engaged in safety testing. However, it states it would be counterproductive to identify developers with whom access has not yet been secured due to commercial sensitivity and ongoing complex negotiations.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
View Details →
62
Conclusion
Deferred
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)
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government responds by outlining its domestic plans to propose legislation and consult on a regulatory regime for powerful AI models to address immediate risks, and mentions existing national security community work, rather than directly addressing international discussions regarding increased existential AI risk.
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
View Details →