#
My Lords, AI has the potential for significant advances in science, productivity and living standards if adopted securely. While we are taking steps to develop our sovereign capability, we are also bringing forward the regulation for growth Bill to ensure that our regulatory environment drives the growth we need to seize the opportunities brought by AI. Through our world-leading AI Security Institute, we are supporting international safeguard developments and ensuring that the Government have the best understanding of model capabilities as they advance.
#
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I also say well done to the England football team for reaching the semi-finals of the World Cup. In doing so, they demonstrated AI—actual intelligence.
The stone age did not end because we ran out of stone. AI technology has given us amazing ways of solving everyday problems. The Minister mentioned the AI Security Institute. It plays an important role, especially concerning research, but it does not have powers to compel companies to engage with or to protect us against serious risks from AI. We know that AI can bring great benefits, from health to wealth, but it can also bring problems. Can the Minister therefore tell us when we will have AI regulation? The Government seem to have a “wait and see” attitude. AI also sees, but it does not wait.
#
The Government are acting to ensure that the UK can grasp the transformative potential of AI. That includes developing our sovereign capability and, as the noble Lord mentioned, relying on the advice of the AI Security Institute. Our approach is that we will legislate where we need to. We have done so through the Online Safety Act and we are doing so in other areas where we see the need. We believe that the best way of regulating is through context-specific regulation, which will take into account the specific issues that arise when AI is adopted by particular sectors.
#
My Lords, I declare an interest as an adviser to DLA Piper on AI regulation and policy. The Government followed Australia in its approach to access to social media for under-16s. Will they do the same with AI, now that Australia will be adopting mandatory standards for AI, as nine in 10 of the British public clearly want?
#
The UK’s approach is to develop our sovereign capabilities. We are investing in infrastructure and in AI growth zones. We are working to ensure that everyone in this country benefits from the potential of AI and are upskilling 10 million workers. In respect of the regulatory environment, AI can be adopted in many different areas: it can advance drug discovery, or it can support teachers in classrooms so that they have more face-to-face time with pupils. It is right to take a context-specific regulatory approach.
#
My Lords, the Government have recognised that greater transparency about AI model training data would help rights holders to assert their rights. Can the Minister tell the House why she has not committed in principle to statutory transparency requirements for commercial AI developers?
#
We set out our approach in March in respect of the issues around copyright and AI. We acknowledged that the approach we had taken previously in respect of the proposals we had put forward did not command the support of the creative industry or the technology industry—or indeed of noble Lords. We have set out a plan to take all that forward over the summer and beyond.
#
What benefits and staff reductions will the Government achieve with their £3 billion commitment to spending on AI for their own purposes?
#
The noble Lord is right that there may be many advances in productivity and efficiency across all the public sector and, indeed, in the private sector. We are setting up the AI Economics Institute to make sure we are well informed with the best advice on the implications for the labour market and the fiscal environment. This is a rapidly developing technology. We are drawing on the best advice so that we can be best prepared to support the UK in this transformative potential.
#
My Lords, the increasing use of AI in education is transforming teaching and learning at all levels. The Government are currently focused on investment in AI skills for work, through tertiary education, as well as having introduced measures to reduce the burden on teachers through innovation funding—all to be welcomed. Will the Government recognise the importance of taking a stronger stance in exposing younger generations to the tools AI offers and commit to a more in-depth curriculum that teaches primary and secondary students the safe and correct ways to use these AI skills?
#
My noble friend is absolutely right to highlight the fact that AI technology is with us today. It is absolutely right that, as he mentioned, we support all parts of society—children, students, workers—to understand this, discern it and use it wisely. That is why we are also developing our digital skills programme and ensuring that everybody can benefit from this transformative technology.
#
My Lords, we understand the Government’s policy of placing most of the burden of AI regulation on to existing sectoral regulators, but the cyber security and resilience Bill will create new burdens for those regulators. The Minister will accept that this is collectively an extremely significant expansion of those regulators’ powers and workload. First, are any further additions planned? Secondly, are the Government taking steps to ensure those regulators have the necessary skills and resources? Thirdly, is the new Prime Minister aware of and supportive of this approach?
#
The noble Viscount is right that the cyber security and resilience Bill will indeed place new obligations on regulators, but that goes hand in hand with the support and the changes in funding and fee recovery that they will be able, after consultation, to enact. They are also supported by the technical authority of the NCSC, which provides them with advice on this. It is obviously the nature of all regulatory activities that they must take into account developments in society and the economy, and the transformative impact of AI. The Regulatory Innovation Office supports regulators to look at how they can adopt AI themselves to improve their regulatory efficiency, as well as looking at developments in their own sectors.
#
Can the Minister inform the House what body will hold ultimate responsibility for the authorisation and regulation of artificial intelligence in autonomous weapons systems?
#
The Ministry of Defence has set out guidance for the adoption of AI in defence. I am afraid that I cannot recall the name of the document—I will need to write to the noble and gallant Lord with that—but it sets out exactly where humans should be involved in defence decision-making. The ministry has consulted and it has expert panels advising it on its approach.
#
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that AI is going to be transformational, but the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, raises a very important point about warfare, where it is going to be transformational and not necessarily for the good. I hear what my noble friend says about the MoD, but this will have to be approached on an international basis. We also have to recognise that some of our adversaries will not be concerned about regulation. Is that not a challenge that we should face now?
#
My noble friend is right that AI is transforming the military and defence. It is indeed incredibly important that we work internationally. Last week, the UKAC co-ordinated the most recent meeting of the International Network for Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science, where we are working together with other countries’ ACs on best practices for model evaluations, using that expertise to build tangible international consensus to mitigate AI risks.
#
My Lords, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register as an adviser to the Crown Estate and to Simmons & Simmons LLP. I thank the Minister for her response to my Written Question of 8 July, setting out what the Government are doing on the international stage, not least with the Council of Europe AI framework. But does the Minister agree that if the UK Government take a point-of-use, sector-by-sector approach then there will be accountability deficits, transparency difficulties and a lack of the three Cs that are crucial whether you are an investor, an innovator, a creative or, crucially, a citizen when it comes to AI: clarity, consistency and a coherent approach? Would an AI Bill not resolve that for the benefit of us all?
#
It remains the case that we must be very attuned to developments in AI, in AI risks and in AI opportunities. We are extremely fortunate to have the AI Security Institute, which can provide us with that advice. Obviously, we will always look at whether there are regulatory or legislative gaps and we will act if we need to.