Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking in
co-operation with international partners to reach a global
agreement on the regulation of advanced forms of artificial
intelligence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Science, Innovation and Technology () (Con)
The Government are co-operating with international partners both
bilaterally and multilaterally to address advanced AI’s
regulatory challenges, including via our autumn global AI safety
summit. The AI regulation White Paper recognises the importance
of such co-operation, as we cannot tackle these issues alone. As
per the G7 leaders’ communiqué, we are committed to advancing
international discussions on inclusive AI governance and
interoperability to achieve our common vision and goal of
trustworthy AI aligned with shared democratic values.
(CB)
I thank the Minister for his Answer and commend the Prime
Minister for his initiatives in this area. Clearly, advanced AI
is epoch-making for the future of humanity and international
co-operation is essential. Can the Minister say, first, whether
there has been any response from China to the Prime Minister’s
initiatives? Secondly, would he agree that one possible role
model is the International Atomic Energy Agency as a way of
monitoring future developments?
(Con)
We must recognise that China is ranked number two in AI
capabilities globally, and we would not therefore envisage
excluding China from any such discussions on how to deal best
with the frontier risks of AI. That said, in the way we approach
China and involve it in this, we need to take full cognisance of
the associated risks. Therefore, we will engage effectively with
our partners to assess the best way forward.
(LD)
My Lords, in a recent speech the Minister rightly said that AI
regulation clarity is critical. How on earth, in trying to
achieve this, is he going to reconcile the AI White Paper’s
tentative and voluntary sectoral approach to AI governance with
the Prime Minister saying that unregulated AI poses an
existential threat to humanity and with his desire to lead the
world in AI safety and regulation? Does this mean that a
screeching U-turn is in prospect?
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. The starting point for
the AI White Paper—of which I do not accept the characterisation
of tentative—was, first, not to duplicate existing regulators’
work; secondly, not to go after specific technologies, because
the technology space is changing so quickly; and, thirdly, to
remain agile and adaptive. We are seeing the benefits of being
agile and adapting to a very rapidly shifting landscape.
(Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister and the
Government on getting involved in international negotiations and
discussions in this area. However, is this not an area where we
have to be careful that we do not have a situation where there is
nothing to fear but fear itself, and where we will lose out, if
we are not careful, in having overregulation that prevents us
using AI to the fullest extent for positive, excellent reasons on
behalf of the people of this country?
(Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right that the potential benefits
of AI are extremely great, but so too are the risks. One of the
functions of our recently announced Foundation Model Taskforce
will be to scan the horizon on both sides of this—for the risks,
which are considerable, and for the benefits, which are
considerable too.
(Lab)
My Lords, I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, who said
that we must develop AI to the maximum extent. There are
benefits, but does the Minister accept that we ignore the dangers
of AI to the great peril of not only ourselves but the world? The
problem is that, despite the advantages of artificial
intelligence, within a very short period it will be more
intelligent than human beings but it will lack one essential
feature of humanity: empathy. Anybody or anything without empathy
is, by definition, psychopathic. It will achieve its ends by any
means. Therefore, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord
Harries, is correct to say that, despite the difficulty of
competition between states, such as the US and China, and within
states, such as between Google, Microsoft and the rest, it is
essential that we get an ethical regulatory framework before
technology runs so far ahead of us that it becomes impossible to
control this phenomenon.
(Con)
The risks have indeed been well publicised and are broadly
understood as to whether and when AI becomes more intelligent
than humans. Opinions vary but the risk is there. Collectively
and globally, we must take due account of the risks; if not, I am
afraid that the scenario that the noble Lord paints will become
reality. That is why bilateral and multilateral engagements
globally are so important, so as to have a single interoperable
regulatory and safety regime, and to have AI that the world can
trust to produce some of the extraordinary benefits of which it
would be capable.
The
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and right reverend
Lord, Lord Harries, for raising this issue. I too believe that
the best way for us to find the potential of AI is by paying
great attention to regulation and ethics, building on what has
just been said. What is best in us is beyond rationality—
“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life
for his friends”
is not a rational decision. I have a simple question about the
autumn summit, which I welcome. Because of the smorgasbord of
ethical issues that AI raises, I am slightly concerned—although I
may have got this wrong—that the summit will be gathering
together business leaders. What about people from civil society?
Will they be invited to the summit, and has this been given real
consideration in helping us build an ethical framework for
regulation?
(Con)
The most reverend Primate is right to argue that we need a broad
field of contributors to the difficult questions around AI
ethics. As to the specific attendees and agenda of the AI global
summit this autumn, those are to be determined, but we will have,
if I may use the phrase, a broad church.
(CB)
My Lords, it is easier to talk about ethical regulations,
particularly internationally, than to address them. Innovations,
particularly in advanced AI and generative AI, are occurring at a
pace. Generative AI is already threatening some of our key
industries. We need regulation that reduces that threat at the
same time as allowing the economy to grow.
(Con)
The White Paper set out the Government’s approach to regulation.
The consultation on the White Paper closed on Wednesday; it has
received a range of highly informed critiques, and praise from
several surprising quarters. Once we have been through it and
assessed the findings of that, we will take forward the approach
to regulating AI, which, as the noble Lord quite rightly points
out, is moving at a very fast pace.
(Lab)
My Lords, while we are told that the Online Safety Bill is both
technology-neutral and future-proofed, concerns are being raised,
with doubts that emerging AI-related threats are sufficiently
covered. With the Bill finally approaching Report, do the
Government intend to introduce any AI-focused protective
measures? What if the Government realise after the Bill’s passage
that more regulations are needed? How confident is the Minister
that future legislation will not be subject to the same sorts of
delays that we have experienced with the Online Safety Bill?
(Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to point out that legislation
must necessarily move more slowly than technology. As far as
possible, the Online Safety Bill has been designed to be
future-proof and not to specify or identify specific technologies
and their effects. AI has been discussed as part of that, and
those discussions continue.
