Ninth Report - The governance of artificial intelligence: interim report

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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