The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology
(Michelle Donelan) With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall
make a statement about the Government’s artificial intelligence
safety summit. Today I update the House about a turning point in
our history. With 1% of the world’s population, we have built the
third largest AI sector. We have rocketed ourselves to a 688%
increase in AI companies basing themselves here in less than a
decade, and UK AI...Request free trial
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology
()
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement
about the Government’s artificial intelligence safety summit.
Today I update the House about a turning point in our history.
With 1% of the world’s population, we have built the third
largest AI sector. We have rocketed ourselves to a 688% increase
in AI companies basing themselves here in less than a decade, and
UK AI scale-ups are raising almost double that of France, Germany
and the rest of Europe combined. But the sudden and unprecedented
growth in the speed and power of artificial intelligence presents
unlimited opportunities along with the potential of grave risks,
which we cannot ignore.
I truly believe that we stand at a crossroads in human history.
To turn the wrong way would be a monumental missed opportunity
for mankind, which is why last week presented such a watershed
moment. We convened leaders, Ministers, developers, scientists
and academics from across the globe to discuss for the first time
the risks and opportunities of frontier AI. Although the
collection of countries and organisations that came to Bletchley
Park was unprecedented, our goal from the start was to leave with
tangible outcomes. Let me briefly outline a handful of actions
that have resulted from the summit.
First, 28 countries and the European Union, representing the
majority of the world’s population, signed up to an unprecedented
agreement known as the Bletchley declaration. Despite some
claiming that such a declaration would be rejected by many
countries in attendance, we agreed that, for the good of all, AI
should be designed, developed, deployed and used in a manner that
is safe, human-centric, trustworthy and responsible. We agreed on
the protection of human rights, transparency and explainability,
fairness, accountability, regulation, safety, appropriate human
oversight, ethics, bias mitigation, privacy and data
protection.
We also agreed to measure, monitor and mitigate potentially
harmful capabilities and the associated effects that may
emerge—in particular to prevent misuse and issues of control, and
the amplification of other risks—and that Turing prize winner
Yoshua Bengio, credited as being one of the godfathers of AI,
would lead on a state of science report to ensure that,
collectively, we stay on top of the risks of frontier AI.
Countries with differing world views and interests, including
China, signed the same agreement. Some had said that China would
not come to the summit, but it did. They said that, if it does
attend, China would never sign an agreement, but it did. Then
they said that if China did sign the agreement, it would not
agree to continue collaborating in the long term—but it did that
as well. That alone would have made the summit a watershed moment
in the history of AI safety, but we went further.
We surpassed all expectations by securing an agreement on
Government-led testing pre-deployment of the models. This is
truly a game changer to help ensure that we can safely harness
the benefits of frontier AI while mitigating the risks. To
facilitate it, the UK announced that the world-leading frontier
taskforce will morph into the world’s first permanent AI safety
institute, which will bring together the very best AI minds in
the world to research future risks and conduct third-party
testing of models.
This is just the start of the journey on AI safety, which is why
we have also confirmed funding for the institute for the rest of
the decade and secured future AI safety summits to be held in the
Republic of Korea in six months’ time and in France in one year’s
time, ensuring that the extraordinary pace of international
action set by the summit last week is maintained into the
future.
None the less, the summit is just one piece in the UK’s overall
approach to AI safety. Our White Paper published earlier this
year was praised for ensuring that the UK can be agile and
responsive as risks emerge. I am sure that Opposition Members
will call for a one-size-fits-all “snapshot in time” piece of
legislation, but we must ensure that we deepen our understanding
of the problem before we rush to produce inadequate
legislation.
We also need to ensure that we are quick enough to act, which is
why we have taken the steps to ensure that we can keep pace with
the development of the technology, with the next set of models
being released within six months. AI is the fastest emerging
technology that we have ever seen, and we need a system that can
identify, evaluate and understand AI to then allow us to mitigate
the risks with the right guardrails. That is why it is such an
achievement to agree the pre-deployment testing of models; we
should not underestimate that achievement.
Companies need to do more too, which is why before the summit we
managed to go further than any country ever has. We secured the
publication of the main AI companies’ safety policies, along with
a catalogue of the possible policies, ensuring transparency and a
race to the top, complemented by the recent US executive order.
It is also why I have been advocating for responsible capability
scaling, which I often refer to as a kind of smoke alarm for AI
developers.
The release of ChatGPT not even a year ago was a breakthrough
moment for humanity. We were all surprised by the progress. We
saw the acceleration of investment into, and adoption of, AI
systems at the frontier, making them increasingly powerful and
consequential to our lives. These systems could turbocharge our
public services, saving lives in the NHS and tailoring education
to every child’s needs. They could free people everywhere from
tedious work and amplify our creative abilities. They could help
our scientists to unlock bold new discoveries, opening the door
to a world where one day diseases such as cancer will no longer
exist and there will be access to near-limitless clean
energy.
But these systems could also further concentrate unaccountable
power in the hands of a few, or be maliciously used to undermine
societal trust, erode public safety or threaten international
security. The British people deserve to know that those who
represent them in this place are driving forward the right
guardrails and governance for the safe development and deployment
of frontier AI systems. I firmly believe that it cannot be left
to chance or private actors alone, nor is it an issue for party
political squabbling or point scoring.
As we stand here today, what was once considered science fiction
is quickly becoming science fact. Just a few years ago, the most
advanced AI systems could barely write coherent sentences. Now
they can write poetry, help doctors to detect cancer, and
generate photo-realistic images in a split second, but with those
incredible advances come potentially grave risks, and we refuse
to bury our head in the sand. We cannot ignore or dismiss the
countless experts who tell us plain and simple that there are
risks of humans losing control, that some model outputs could
become completely unpredictable, and that the societal impacts of
AI advances could seriously disrupt safety and security here at
home.
Countries entered the summit with diverse and conflicting views
of the world. Some speculated that a deal between the countries
invited would be impossible, but what we achieved in just two
days at Bletchley Park will be remembered as the moment that the
world came together to begin solving an unprecedented global
challenge. An international approach is not just preferable, but
absolutely essential. Some Members understandably questioned the
decision to invite China to the summit, and I do not dismiss the
very real concerns and grievances that many on both sides of the
House might have had, but a Government who represent the British
people must ultimately do what is right for the British people,
especially when it comes to keeping them safe. I am firm that it
was the right decision for the country in the long term. There
simply cannot be a substantive conversation about AI without
involving the world’s leading AI nations, and China is currently
second in the world in AI.
AI is not some phenomenon that is happening to us; it is a force
that we have the power to shape and direct. I believe that we
have a responsibility—and, in fact, a duty—to act and to act now.
I conclude by taking us back to the beginning: 73 years ago, Alan
Turing dared to ask whether computers would one day think. From
his vantage point at the dawn of the field, he observed that
“we can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty
there that needs to be done.”
For us in this place, there is indeed plenty that needs to be
done, but we cannot do it in isolation, so I urge Members across
the House to adopt the collaborative, constructive approach that
the international community displayed at Bletchley last week. If
we in this place put our differences aside on this issue and work
pragmatically on behalf of the British people, this new era of
artificial intelligence can truly benefit every person and
community across the country and beyond. Our summit was a
successful step forward, but we are only just getting started. I
commend this statement to the House.
11.14am
(Reading East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her
statement. As we have heard, the opportunities of AI are almost
endless. It has the potential to transform the world and deliver
life-changing benefits for working people. From delivering
earlier cancer diagnoses to relieving traffic congestion or
providing personalised tuition to children, AI can be a force for
good. It is already having a positive impact in the present: in
NHS hospitals such as the Huddersfield Royal Infirmary, AI is
being used to help patients, cut waiting lists and save lives.
The Labour party wants that technology to be available in every
hospital with our fit for the future fund.
However, to secure those benefits we must get on top of the risks
and we must build public trust. We welcome the announcements made
last week at Bletchley Park. The future summits in South Korea
and France will hopefully lead to more agreement between nations
about how we make this new technology work for everyone. The AI
safety institute will play an important role in making this new
technology safe. Labour supports its creation, but we do have
some questions. It would be good to hear the Secretary of State
explain why the new institute is not keeping the function of
identifying new uses for AI in the public sector. As the
institute is taking all the AI expertise from the taskforce, it
is also unclear who in her Department will carry out the crucial
role of identifying how the public sector can benefit from
cutting-edge technology.
There are also questions about UK computer capability. The AI
safety institute policy paper states:
“Running evaluations and advancing safety research will also
depend on access to compute.”
Yet earlier this year, the Government had less computing power
than Finland and Italy. Can the Secretary of State update the
House on how much of the AI research resource to which the
institute will get priority access is available and
operational?
Of course, the main task of the institute is to understand the
risks of the most advanced current AI capabilities and any future
developments. The Prime Minister told the public two weeks ago
that,
“AI could make it easier to build chemical or biological weapons.
Terrorist groups could use AI to spread fear and destruction on
an even greater scale. Criminals could exploit AI for
cyber-attacks, disinformation, fraud, or even child sexual
abuse.”
Those are stark warnings and demand urgent action from any
Government. Keeping the public safe is the first duty of
Government. Yet Ministers have chosen not to bring forward any
legislation on the most advanced AI. All the commitments that
have been made are voluntary, and that creates problems.
For example, if a new company is established with advanced
capabilities, how will it be compelled to join the voluntary
scheme? What if a company decides it does not want to co-operate
any more? Is there a mechanism to stop that happening? The stakes
are too high for those questions to remain open, so I look
forward to the Secretary of State’s being able to offer us more
detail.
There was a space for a Bill on pedicabs in London in the King’s
Speech this year, but not for one on frontier AI. Other
countries, such as the US, have moved ahead with mandatory
regulation for safety and security. It is confusing for the
public to hear a Prime Minister on the one hand tell the country
that there are dangers to our way of life from AI, but on the
other hand say that his Government are in no rush to
regulate.
Labour has called for the introduction of binding regulation on
those companies developing the most powerful frontier AI because,
for us, the security of the British people will always come
first. I hope that the Government will now consider taking action
and I look forward to the Secretary of State’s response to these
points.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the importance of building
trust among the public, which will also ensure the adoption of
AI. In relation to ensuring that we deploy AI throughout our
public services, it was this Government who just the other week
announced £100 million to accelerate AI in our health missions,
and more than £2 million to assist our teachers to spend less
time with paperwork and administration and more time in the
classroom. We will continue to work hand in hand with the Cabinet
Office to ensure that we utilise AI in our public services, but
to be able to do that, we must of course grip the risk, which is
exactly why we called the summit.
On computing, the hon. Member will be only too aware that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer announced earlier this year £900
million for an exascale programme, which we have allocated in
Edinburgh. We have also dedicated £300 million—triple the
original amount announced—to AI research resource facilities in
Cambridge and Bristol, the first of which will come on stream
this year.
The hon. Member also referenced the risk document that we
published. We were the first Government in the world to be fully
transparent with the British public, showcasing the risks that AI
could present. That document was produced by scientists and our
national security teams.
The hon. Member referenced legislation and regulation. It is not
true that we have no regulation; in fact, we have multiple
regulators. In the White Paper that we published earlier this
year, we set out the principles that they need to work to. We
should not minimise what we achieved just last week: that
agreement to do testing pre-deployment is monumental. It
is—absolutely—the start of a process, not the end. We could have
waited and said, “Let’s just do our own piece of legislation,”
which would have taken about a year, as he knows, but we do not
have a year to wait, because the next set of models will come out
with six months. We also need to deepen our understanding of the
risks before we rush to legislate, because we believe that we
need to better understand the problems before we insert long-term
fixed solutions.
We need to concentrate on putting the safety of the British
public first, which is what we have done, so that we can seize
the limitless opportunities of AI. I hope that the hon. Member
will see the foresight that this Government have had in putting
that not just on the British agenda but on the agenda of the
world.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee.
(Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
May I congratulate the Government on convening the summit and on
its success? It is, as the Secretary of State said, a
considerable achievement to get the US, the EU and China to agree
a communiqué. It was good to have access to the frontier models
that the summit agreed. Having future summits, in six months’
time, is also an important step forward.
As the Secretary of State said, the summit focused principally on
frontier AI, but it is vital that we can deal with the
here-and-now risks of the AI being deployed already. In the White
Paper that they published in March, the Government said that they
expected to legislate to have regulators pay
“due regard to the principles”
of that White Paper, but such a Bill was missing from the King’s
Speech. Meanwhile, in the US, a very extensive executive order
has been issued, and the EU is finalising its Artificial
Intelligence Act.
Will the Secretary of State think again, in publishing the
response to the White Paper, about taking this final opportunity
before a general election to ensure that the good intentions and
practice of the Government are not inadvertently left behind,
with other jurisdictions’ legislation preceding our own and other
people setting the rules rather than the United Kingdom setting a
framework for the world?
I thank my right hon. Friend for his important question. I think
it is right that we do not rush to legislate, because we need to
understand properly the risks that we are facing. That is why we
have been investing in bringing on board the correct experts,
both into Government and into the taskforce that will now morph
into the institute. It is why we have also committed not just
ourselves but our international partners to producing the “state
of the science” reports, so that we can stay up to date with
those risks.
Absolutely, we will eventually have to legislate, but as we said
in the White Paper that we published earlier this year, we do not
need to rush to do that; we need to get the timing right to
ensure that we have the right solutions to match those problems.
There is a lot that we can do without legislation. We
demonstrated that last week by convening the world for collective
action to secure pre-model deployment testing, to ensure that we
work together to get a better handle on the risks, and to
encourage partners such as America to go further, on which we
have seen us and them acting in lockstep.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the SNP spokesperson.
(Gordon) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her
statement. The Bletchley declaration provides a baseline and is
useful as a starting point, but it will be ongoing engagement
that counts as we develop our understanding of the opportunities
and threats that AI presents.
I was very taken by the Secretary of State saying that this was
not an opportunity for party political point scoring. In that
vein, on reflection, does she share my disappointment that the UK
Government seemed to actively take steps to exclude the
involvement of the devolved Administrations from around these
islands from participation in the summit? Any claim that the UK
might have to global leadership in AI rests in large part on the
work that goes on in all parts of these islands, particularly
from a legal, ethical, regulatory and technological perspective.
It would have been very valuable had the other Governments that
exist on these islands had the opportunity to fully participate
in the summit.
While the declaration is a useful starting point, it is the
future work on this that will count, so may I have an assurance
from the Secretary of State that the UK Government will not seek
to curtail again the involvement of devolved Administrations
around these islands in future national and international
discussions on these matters?
I met my counterpart—and my counterpart from Wales—just days
before the summit, but as the hon. Member will appreciate, AI is
not a devolved matter, and the people of Scotland were
represented by the UK Government.
(South Ribble)
(Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and the frontier
taskforce for all the work it has done to produce an important
global moment not dissimilar to the COP process. My question is
about the AI safety team. In Lancashire we have the National
Cyber Force centre coming in Samlesbury, and there is already a
big skills base in the region, with GCHQ in Manchester. Can she
update me and my constituents on how AI safety will get fed into
our national security and how she will work with the National
Cyber Force centre?
I know that my hon. Friend is a passionate advocate of
cyber-security, which is one key area that we delved into at the
summit. It is incredibly important that we maintain
cyber-security throughout not just our Government and public
services but our businesses, which is why we have been
prioritising the area in the UK. I continue to talk to my hon.
Friend and other Members about this work.
(Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. On her
reference to poetry, may I remind her that AI creates nothing? It
generates a facsimile of text, but it does not create poetry. On
the 400th anniversary of the first folio, that can only be done
by this quintessence of dust that we are.
On that point, why were the creative industries excluded from the
AI summit, when the Secretary of State knows how bitterly
disappointed they were not to be included and how profoundly
existential this whole issue is for the creative industries—one
of the most successful and fastest growing sectors of our
economy? Instead, they have been offered the sop of a side
roundtable in the future, which the platforms are not even
attending. Will the Secretary of State think again about the
importance of including our excellent creative industries in
every discussion that the Government have about the future of
artificial intelligence?
Because the summit was only two days and was focused on a
strategic conversation about frontier and the risks and
opportunities, not everybody could be engaged and attend. We had
an extensive programme called the road to the summit, where
several roundtables were held with the creative industries, and
both the Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure and I
attended. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport led
some roundtables as well. We are currently working on a code of
practice, bringing together the creative sector and the AI
sector, to identify and come up with some of the solutions in
this area.
(Milton Keynes North)
(Con)
It was a great pleasure to join the Secretary of State, the Prime
Minister, and business and Government leaders from around the
world last week at the AI safety summit. Does the Secretary of
State agree that Milton Keynes showcased that it was an excellent
place to not only hold global events, but to invest in
technologies such as AI and robotics?
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I could not have thought
of a better place to host this international summit than
Bletchley Park. It is not just me who thinks so: all of our
delegates remarked on how important it was to host it at such a
historically significant venue, one so close to the vibrant tech
capital of Milton Keynes.
(Caithness, Sutherland and
Easter Ross) (LD)
The Bletchley Park declaration is indeed to be welcomed. Given
the more or less consensual response to the Secretary of State’s
statement, it strikes me that taking this issue forward on a
cross-party basis is going to be absolutely crucial. There was no
mention of legislation in the King’s Speech, and although I
partially accept the Secretary of State’s point about the time
involved in legislating, Governments of all colours come and go,
but this issue transcends those changes. Can we get an
undertaking from the Secretary of State that there will be
discussions right across the Chamber involving all the parties
about where she sees things going and what legislation may have
to be looked at in the future, in order to give continuity?
I am more than happy to talk to anybody from around the House,
and to convene a meeting with colleagues of all colours to
discuss this important area and what the future may hold in terms
of responses and action.
(Bosworth) (Con)
It was in 1993 that the world wide web first became accessible to
the public, and 30 years on, the world is still grappling with
how to regulate and legislate for this industry. I am pleased
that we heard from the summit that we are going to have proactive
model checking, but I agree with the Chair of the Select
Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells
(), that much of this AI
technology is already out there—that is the problem. How quickly
will the safety institute be set up, and most importantly, how
quickly will we see tangible results? Can we learn lessons from
the vaccine, and from the Medicines and Healthcare products
Regulatory Agency on how legislation and regulation can run
alongside innovation in this sector?
In fact, we are learning some of those lessons, because the
taskforce itself was modelled on our world-leading vaccine
taskforce. As to when the institute will be set up, to all
intents and purposes it has already been set up, because it is
the next chapter—the evolution—of the existing taskforce. That
taskforce has already done research on safety, and has
demonstrated to delegates at the summit the full potential of the
risks that could be apparent. It has already begun testing those
models, and I can assure this House that there will be
pre-deployment testing of the models that are going to come out
within the next six months.
(Cardiff South and Penarth)
(Lab/Co-op)
The first folio has been quoted. I would like to quote a more
recent famous science fiction series: one Commander Adama, who
said,
“You cannot play God then wash your hands of the things that
you’ve created.”
I absolutely agree that there are huge opportunities in AI, but
we have already heard about the huge risks. The Secretary of
State says that we should not rush to legislation, but the truth
is that we have often lagged behind in this area—for example, in
regulating social media—and we see others moving ahead, including
the United States, as we have heard. The EU is also planning
legislation by the end of the year. If we are not having
legislation, can the Secretary of State at least assure us that
an urgent assessment is being made of how hostile states are
already weaponising AI for military and other purposes, including
information, cyber and hybrid warfare, but also in the chemical,
biological, radiological and nuclear spheres? Some hugely
worrying stuff is happening out there. Are we urgently assessing
it, and deciding how we will respond and defend this country?
Let me pull up the hon. Member on one comment he made, which was
about us lagging behind on legislation for social media. We are
in fact leading the world with the world’s most comprehensive
Bill—now Act—in that area. On the misuse of AI, this is one of
the three pillars of risk that we discussed at the summit. The
risk documents that we published just before the summit
highlighted the fact that AI can amplify existing risks. There
are already risks presented by the internet and other
technologies in relation to biochemical warfare—they are present
today and we are dealing with them. This could potentially
amplify that, and we have certainly both talked about that
internationally and are working on it domestically. We will be
coming back to our White Paper within the year.
(Harrow East) (Con)
Historically, every revolution at a time of technology leads to
threats of job losses—people not having opportunities to work,
which is dreadful for people’s lives. However, here we are today
with almost full employment in the UK, and there are
opportunities for AI to increase that, as well as to make
people’s lives easier, improve employment prospects and, indeed,
conquer diseases. Will my right hon. Friend set out some of the
advantages for the average individual of harnessing artificial
intelligence for the benefit of all humankind?
The opportunities from AI are limitless, and they can transform
our public services. In fact, that is already happening. We see
our doctors detecting cancer earlier, and we see us utilising the
technology to try to tackle things such as climate change more
quickly. In relation to jobs, my hon. Friend is quite right that
AI, like any technology, will change the labour market. If we
look back to 1940, we see that 60% of jobs we have now did not
actually exist back then. AI will create new jobs, and jobs we
cannot even think of, but it will also complement our jobs now,
allowing us more time to do the bits of our jobs we actually
train to do—for example, assisting teachers to have more time in
the classroom and doctors to have more time with patients.
(Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath)
(Alba)
During the covid pandemic, one of my greatest concerns was the
over-reliance on and the promotion of lateral flow devices as a
gold standard, as it were, of testing and surveillance. It was
all the more frustrating because, during that time, I was aware
of domestic businesses that were developing AI models to surveil
not just covid, but other viruses, such as Ebola and dengue
fever. I had a recent very constructive meeting with Health,
which is now on board with AI and looking at domestic
diagnostics. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how
these businesses can be brought forward as part of a co-ordinated
strategy to develop AI testing and prepare effectively for any
future pandemic?
I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Member.
(Edinburgh North and Leith)
(SNP)
Sorry, but not only do I not buy the Secretary of State’s excuses
for not including devolved Governments in the summit when my
constituency alone is bursting with leading fintech,
cyber-security and creative organisations, but I do not buy her
excuses for not introducing regulation more rapidly. She has said
herself that the game-changing ChatGPT was introduced a year or
so ago, and the EU is rapidly approaching completion of its first
AI Act. Why have her Government once again been caught napping on
introducing regulation?
To repeat the comments I made earlier, AI is not a devolved
matter, and the people of Scotland were represented by the UK
Government—by me and also by the Prime Minister of the UK. In
relation to her urging us to do a copycat of EU legislation, may
I point out that it was our White Paper that was praised for its
innovation and its agility? It has allowed us to attract some of
the leading AI companies to set up their first international
offices here in the UK, creating the jobs not only of today, but
of tomorrow.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement.
|
