Third Report - Governance of artificial intelligence (AI)

Select Committee

Science, Innovation and Technology Committee HC 38 28 May 2024

Report Status Government responded

Conclusions & Recommendations 62 items (11 recs)

Source View on Parliament website

Government Response (AI assessment · 62 of 62 classified)

Accepted 43

Accepted in Part 1

Acknowledged 10

Deferred 4

Rejected 4

Recommendations

11 results

4 Accepted

Ensure the AI regulatory framework effectively addresses the Twelve Challenges of AI Governance.

Recommendation

The Government should certainly make the case for AI but should equally ensure that its regulatory framework addresses the Twelve Challenges of AI Governance that we have identified in our interim Report; and offer potential solutions to in this Report. … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government states its intention to introduce targeted legislation to establish binding requirements on companies developing the most powerful AI systems. This proposed legislation aims to ensure the UK is prepared for the technology, strengthen public trust, and reduce regulatory uncertainty, building on voluntary commitments and the AI Safety Institute.

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

6 Accepted

Para 34

Provide further consideration of specific criteria for triggering a decision to introduce AI legislation.

Recommendation

The Government should in its response to this Report provide further consideration of the criteria on which a decision to legislate will be triggered, including which model performance indicators, training requirements such as compute power or other factors will be … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government welcomes the findings and confirms its proposal to establish legislation for powerful AI models, as announced at the King’s Speech. It commits to consulting on these proposals before bringing forward legislation, which will include how the most powerful AI models will be captured.

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

12 Accepted

Para 46

Identify areas for closer regulatory co-operation on AI and propose co-ordination mechanisms.

Recommendation

The regulatory gap analysis being undertaken by the Government should identify, in consultation with the relevant regulators and co-ordinating entities such as the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum and the AI and Digital Regulations Service, areas where new AI models and … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government will establish the Regulatory Innovation Office (RIO) to support regulators in working together smoothly and informing the government of regulatory barriers. It also commits £10m to boost regulators' AI capabilities and £2m to the DRCF's AI and Digital Hub, which supports coordination.

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

18 Acknowledged

Confirm i.AI public sector pilot list, selection criteria, evaluation, and future plans.

Recommendation

In its response to this Report, the Government should confirm the full list of public sector pilots currently being led or supported by i.AI, the criteria that determined i.AI pilot project selections, how it intends to evaluate their success and … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government lists several i.AI pilot projects such as 'Caddy' and 'Redbox', directing to the i.AI website for further details. However, it does not provide the specific selection criteria, evaluation methods, or plans for other pilots as requested in the report, stating "further updates on this will be shared."

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

19 Accepted in Part

Para 76

Undertake AI capability assessment for civil service and publish detailed public sector action plan.

Recommendation

i.AI should undertake an assessment of the existing civil service workforce’s AI capability, identify areas of the public sector that would benefit the most from the use of AI and where value for money can be delivered, set out how … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government describes ongoing work and existing frameworks that partially address the recommendation, including a Generative AI Framework for risk mitigation and new AI courses for civil service capability. It refers to an upcoming 'AI Opportunities Action Plan' that will detail public sector AI adoption but does not explicitly commit to publishing a detailed AI public sector action plan or annual reporting to Parliament.

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

25 Rejected

Para 91

Confirm models tested by AI Safety Institute, testing details, findings, and developer changes.

Recommendation

In its response to this Report, the Government should confirm which models the AI Safety Institute has undertaken pre-deployment safety testing on, the nature of the Governance of artificial intelligence (AI) 55 testing, a summary of the findings, whether any … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government rejected providing specific details on which models the AI Safety Institute has tested, the nature of findings, or developer changes. It stated this is often not appropriate due to commercial sensitivity and would be counterproductive to publicise.

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

26 Rejected

Confirm models the AI Safety Institute could not access and name refusing developers.

Recommendation

The Government should also confirm which models the Institute has been unable to secure access to, and the reason for this. If any developers have refused access— which would represent a contravention of the reported agreement at the November 2023 … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government rejected confirming which models the AI Safety Institute has been unable to access or naming developers who refused access. It stated that identifying specific developers would be counterproductive due to complex, commercially sensitive negotiations.

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

35 Accepted

Para 146

Publish detailed guidance for AI deployers to balance privacy protection and benefits

Recommendation

Sectoral regulators should publish detailed guidance to help deployers of AI strike the balance between the protection of privacy and securing the technology’s intended benefits. In instances where regulators determine that this balance has not been met, or where the … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government largely points to existing data protection law and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), stating the ICO already publishes guidance for AI systems and possesses a range of enforcement powers to address non-compliance regarding privacy.

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

46 Accepted

Para 166

Publish AI Research Resource action plan and undertake National Compute Cluster feasibility study.

Recommendation

The Government, or its successor administration, should publish an action plan and proposed deliverables for both the AI Research Resource and its cluster of supercomputers, and further details of the terms under which researchers and innovative startups will be able … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government commits to developing a long-term plan for UK compute needs ahead of the Spring spending review and will shortly announce details on how researchers can access the AI Research Resource (AIRR).

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

51 Accepted

Para 180

Ensure law enforcement and regulators are adequately resourced for harmful AI content response.

Recommendation

The Government should in its response to this Report tell us how it will ensure law enforcement and regulators are adequately resourced to respond to the growing use of AI models and tools to generate and disseminate harmful and illegal content.

Government Response Summary

The government stated that Ofcom's regulation costs under the Online Safety Act, including for AI-generated content, will be funded by an annual industry fee, ensuring adequate resources and robust enforcement powers. Additionally, the government is investing in deepfake detection, reviewing criminal law for AI-enabled offending, investing in policing skills, and exploring measures to restrict criminal use of AI tools.

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

56 Accepted

Commission a review into AI's future skills and employment consequences, including retraining for automation.

Recommendation

The current Government, or its successor, should commission a review into the possible future skills and employment consequences of AI, along the lines of the 2017 Taylor Review of modern working practices which examined the landscape, suggested ideas for debate … Read more

Government Response Summary

The government commissioned exploratory research by Ipsos Mori to assess AI skills needs up to 2035, which will guide future policymaking. It will also publish a comprehensive strategy for post-16 education in Spring 2025, addressing worker retraining in light of AI.

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology

Conclusions (51) Observations and findings — click to expand

1 Conclusion Accepted

With a General Election approaching we have sought to make this Report futureproof and believe that our conclusions and recommendations will remain applicable to future Administrations. It is important that the timing of the General Election does not stall necessary efforts by the Government, developers and deployers of AI to …

Government Response Summary

The government notes the conclusions and recommendations, agreeing on the need for AI-specific legislation. It commits to shortly publishing a consultation outlining legislative proposals for binding regulations on powerful AI model developers, aligning with the call to not stall efforts.

2 Conclusion Accepted

Para 22

If governed appropriately, we believe that AI can deliver on its significant promise, to complement and augment human activity. The Government has articulated the case for AI: better public services, high quality jobs and a new era of economic growth driven by advances in AI capabilities.

Government Response Summary

The government outlined its 'AI Opportunities Action Plan' to drive growth, adoption, and secure infrastructure, talent, and data for AI. It also announced an intention to introduce highly targeted legislation to place binding requirements on developers of the most powerful AI systems to ensure trust and safety.

3 Conclusion Accepted

Para 23

The Government is right to emphasise the potential societal and economic benefits to be won from the strategic deployment of AI. However, as our interim Report highlighted, the challenges are as clear as the potential benefits, and these benefits cannot be realised without public trust in the technology.

Government Response Summary

The government agrees on the importance of public trust in AI for economic benefits and states its intention to introduce targeted legislation to establish binding requirements on companies developing the most powerful AI systems. This legislation aims to strengthen public trust, reduce regulatory uncertainty, and build on existing voluntary commitments and the AI Safety Institute.

5 Conclusion Accepted

Para 33

The next Government should stand ready to introduce new AI-specific legislation, should an approach based on regulatory activity, existing legislation and voluntary commitments by leading developers prove insufficient to address current and potential future harms associated with the technology.

Government Response Summary

The government has committed to introducing appropriate legislation, announced in the King's Speech, to place requirements on developers of the most powerful AI models. It intends to consult on these proposals before bringing the legislation forward.

7 Conclusion Deferred

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 assessment whether these criteria have been met. (Paragraph 35) The …

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.

8 Conclusion Accepted

Para 40

We welcome confirmation that the Government will undertake a regulatory gap analysis to determine whether regulators require new powers to respond properly to Governance of artificial intelligence (AI) 53 the growing use of AI, as recommended in our interim Report. However, as the end of this Parliament approaches, there is …

Government Response Summary

The government is providing £10 million to boost regulators’ AI capabilities and £2 million for the DRCF’s AI and Digital Hub. It also established the new Regulatory Innovation Office (RIO) to support regulators, with an initial focus on four areas including AI and Digital in healthcare.

9 Conclusion Deferred

Para 41

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 enacted as soon as possible after the General Election.

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.

10 Conclusion Accepted

Para 45

The general-purpose nature of AI will, in some instances, lead to regulatory overlap, and a potential blurring of responsibilities. This could create confusion on the part of consumers, developers and deployers of the technology, as well as regulators themselves.

Government Response Summary

The government acknowledges the potential for regulatory overlap and confirms its strategy of relying on existing expert regulators. It outlines efforts to support coordination and collaboration among regulators through £10m funding for AI capabilities, £2m for the DRCF's AI and Digital Hub, and the new Regulatory Innovation Office (RIO) to ensure different bodies work together smoothly.

11 Conclusion Accepted

Para 45

The steering committee that the Government has said it will establish should be empowered to provide guidance and, where necessary, direction to help regulators navigate any overlapping remits, whilst respecting the independence of the UK’s regulators.

Government Response Summary

The government will establish the Regulatory Innovation Office (RIO) to support regulators, speed up approvals, ensure smooth collaboration, and set priorities. It is also committing £10m to boost regulators' AI capabilities and £2m to the DRCF's AI and Digital Hub.

13 Conclusion Accepted

Para 55

The increasing prevalence and general-purpose nature of AI will create challenges for the UK’s sectoral regulators, however expert they may be. The AI challenge can be summed up in a single word: capacity. Ofcom, for example, is combining implementation of a broad new suite of powers conferred on it by …

Government Response Summary

The government commits £10m to boost regulators' AI capabilities, which is part of a broader programme to support regulators. The newly established Regulatory Innovation Office (RIO) will also support regulators in developing the capability they need.

14 Conclusion Accepted

Para 56

The announced £10 million to support regulators in responding to the growing prevalence of AI is clearly insufficient to meet the challenge, particularly when compared to the UK revenues of leading AI developers.

Government Response Summary

The government reiterates its commitment to providing £10m funding to boost regulators’ AI capabilities, stating this is part of a broader programme of work, and also highlights £2m support for the DRCF. It does not commit to increasing the funding in response to the committee's observation of insufficiency.

15 Conclusion Rejected

The next Government must announce further financial support, agreed in consultation with regulators, that is commensurate to the scale of the task. It should also consider the benefits of a one-off or recurring industry levy, that would allow regulators to supplement or replace support from the Exchequer for their AI-related …

Government Response Summary

The government reiterates its commitment to providing £10m funding for regulators' AI capabilities and £2m to the DRCF. It does not commit to providing further financial support or considering an industry levy, as recommended by the committee.

16 Conclusion Accepted

Para 73

AI can be used to increase productivity and augment the contributions of human workers in both the public and private sectors. We welcome the establishment of i.AI and the focus on AI deployment set out in the public sector productivity programme; as well as initiatives to increase business adoption such …

Government Response Summary

The government states the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS) is now mandatory for all government departments and prioritised arm’s-length bodies, with first records and a scope/exemptions policy to be published imminently. They also highlight ongoing pilots of i.AI tools like Caddy and Redbox in the public sector.

17 Conclusion Accepted

Para 74

The next Government should drive safe adoption of AI in the public sector via i.AI, the National Science and Technology Council and designated lead departmental Ministers for AI.

Government Response Summary

The government is expanding the Incubator for AI (i.AI) into a new Digital Centre of Government to drive public sector AI adoption, listing several current pilot projects like 'Caddy' and 'Redbox'. It also states that the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS) is being rolled out as a mandatory requirement for government departments and priority arm’s-length bodies.

20 Conclusion Acknowledged

The requirement for Government departments to use the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard should be extended to all public bodies sponsored by Government departments, from 1 January 2025. (Paragraph 77) The AI Safety Institute

Government Response Summary

The government has made the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS) mandatory for central government departments and a priority group of 85 arm’s-length bodies. It states an intent to extend it to the broader public sector over time and will continue to explore options for further embedding and enforcing its use, but does not commit to extending it to all sponsored public bodies by 1 January 2025.

21 Conclusion Accepted

Para 80

It is a credit to the commitment of those involved that the AI Safety Institute has been swiftly established, with an impressive and growing team of researchers and technical experts recruited from leading developers and academic institutions.

Government Response Summary

The government commits to introducing legislation in the coming months to put the AI Safety Institute (AISI) on a statutory footing. They also highlight ongoing work in safety testing frontier AI models and expanding international collaboration.

22 Conclusion Acknowledged

Para 80

The next Government should continue to empower the Institute to recruit the talent it needs.

Government Response Summary

The government intends to put the AI Safety Institute (AISI) on a statutory footing, which it believes would strengthen its role. However, the response does not provide specific details on how it will continue to empower the Institute to recruit the talent it needs.

23 Conclusion Accepted

Para 89

Although the Institute is not a regulator, it has undeniably played a decisive role in shaping the UK’s regulatory approach to AI. We commend the work of the Institute and its researchers in facilitating and informing the ongoing international conversation about AI governance.

Government Response Summary

The government expresses pride in the AI Safety Institute's work and confirms its intention to put the Institute on a statutory footing, with further details expected. It highlights the AISI's role in safety testing and international collaboration.

24 Conclusion Deferred

Para 90

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 mission and its ability to increase public trust in the …

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.

27 Conclusion Acknowledged

Para 129

In our interim Report we highlighted moves by both the United States and European Union to develop their own approaches to AI governance. The subsequent White House Executive Order and the EU AI Act are clear attempts to secure competitive regulatory advantage.

Government Response Summary

The government reiterates its commitment to making the UK a world leader in AI and states it will continue to engage closely with international partners as it further develops its approach to AI governance, including legislative proposals.

28 Conclusion Acknowledged

Para 130

It is true that the size of both the United States and European Union markets may mean that ‘the Washington effect’ and ‘Brussels effect’—referring to the de facto standardising of global regulatory approaches, potentially to the detriment of the UK’s distinct approach—will apply to AI governance. Nevertheless, the distinctiveness of …

Government Response Summary

The government reaffirmed its commitment to making the UK a world leader in AI and will continue to engage with international partners, including the US and EU, to develop its AI governance approach and legislative proposals. It highlighted its ongoing international leadership through summits and the AI Standards Hub.

29 Conclusion Acknowledged

Para 131

Both the US and EU approaches to AI governance have their downsides. The scope of the former only imposes a requirement on Federal bodies and relies on voluntary commitments from leading developers. The latter has been criticised for its top- down, prescriptive approach and the potential for uneven implementation across …

Government Response Summary

The government did not directly address the committee's specific observations on the downsides of US and EU AI governance. Instead, it reiterated its commitment to making the UK an AI leader, continuing international engagement, and developing its own AI governance approach and legislative proposals, highlighting existing initiatives.

30 Conclusion Acknowledged

Para 132

The UK is entitled to pursue an approach that considers developments in other jurisdictions but does not unthinkingly replicate them. However, where there are lessons to be learned from other jurisdictions, the next Government should be willing to apply them.

Government Response Summary

The government stated its commitment to continuing engagement with international partners, including the US and EU, to further develop its AI governance approach and legislative proposals, aligning with the principle of learning from other jurisdictions while maintaining a distinct UK approach.

31 Conclusion Acknowledged

The UK has a long history of encouraging technological innovation by offering a stable, expert regulatory environment coupled with clear industry standards. The current Government is therefore right to have encouraged the growth of a strong AI sector in the UK, engaged with leading developers through the AI Safety Institute …

Government Response Summary

The government affirmed its commitment to making the UK an AI leader, continuing its international agenda through summits and the AI Safety Institute, and engaging with partners to develop its AI governance approach and legislative proposals, broadly aligning with the recommendation for a domestic framework.

32 Conclusion Rejected

AI can entrench and accelerate existing biases. The current Government, future administrations and sectoral regulators should require deployers of AI models and tools to submit them to robust, independent testing and performance analysis prior to deployment. (Paragraph 140) 56 Governance of artificial intelligence (AI)

Government Response Summary

The government's response text is a page number/header and does not address the recommendation to require independent testing of AI models for bias prior to deployment.

33 Conclusion Accepted

Para 141

Model developers and deployers should be required to summarise what steps they have taken to account for bias in datasets used to train models, and to statistically report on the levels of bias present in outputs produced using AI tools. This data should be routinely disclosed in a similar way …

Government Response Summary

The government states the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS) is now mandatory for government departments and includes fields for reporting bias mitigations and training data. DSIT is actively developing robust fairness tests, has provided grant funding for bias-related solutions, and is developing a Responsible AI Toolkit for bias testing and reporting.

34 Conclusion Accepted

Para 145

Regulators and deployers should ensure that the right balance is maintained between the protection of privacy and pursuing the potential benefits of AI. Determining this balance will depend on the context in which the technology is being deployed, with reference to the relevant laws and regulations.

Government Response Summary

The government states that existing principles-based data protection law (UK GDPR) already allows for striking the right balance between privacy and AI benefits. It details the Information Commissioner’s Office’s (ICO) role, existing guidance, and enforcement powers in this area, including requirements for data protection by design.

36 Conclusion Accepted

Para 150

We welcome the Government amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill as a necessary step towards ensuring the UK’s legal framework reflects the current state of technological development and protects citizens, primarily women and girls, from the consequences of AI-assisted misrepresentation, including deepfake pornography.

Government Response Summary

The government is actively working with the Home Office and Ministry of Justice to identify the most appropriate legislative vehicle to introduce measures to ban the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes and ensure appropriate punishment.

37 Conclusion Accepted

Para 150

Should the Bill’s remaining stages fail to be completed prior to the dissolution of Parliament, the next Government must introduce similar provisions as soon as is practicable after the General Election.

Government Response Summary

The government committed to banning the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes as part of its manifesto commitments and is actively working with the Home Office and Ministry of Justice to identify the appropriate legislative vehicle to introduce this measure.

38 Conclusion Accepted

Para 154

The Government and regulatory authorities, informed by the work of the Defending Democracy Taskforce, should safeguard the integrity of the upcoming General Election campaign in its approach to the online platforms that host deepfake content which seeks to exert a malign influence on the democratic process. If these platforms are …

Government Response Summary

The government details existing systems and processes, such as the Defending Democracy Taskforce and the Joint Election Security and Preparedness Unit, that safeguard democratic integrity. It highlights that the Online Safety Act has introduced duties for platforms to mitigate illegal content, including AI-generated deepfakes and foreign interference.

39 Conclusion Accepted

Para 155

A cross-Government public awareness campaign should be launched to inform the public about the growing prevalence of AI-assisted misrepresentation, the potential consequences, what the Government is doing to address the Challenge, and what steps individuals can take to protect themselves online.

Government Response Summary

The government states it is addressing the issue through existing initiatives, including updating Ofcom's media literacy duties via the Online Safety Act and providing almost £3 million in grant funding for media literacy projects between 2022-2024. It also mentions an independent Curriculum and Assessment Review focusing on critical thinking skills.

40 Conclusion Accepted

Para 159

At the so-called ‘frontier’ of AI a small group of leading developers are responsible for and accruing significant benefits from the development of advanced models and tools—thanks in part to their ability to access the necessary training data. This potential dominance is arguably to the detriment of free and open …

Government Response Summary

The government states the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act will equip the CMA with new tools to address competition issues in AI markets, with measures set to commence in January 2025. The CMA is also already using its existing tools to analyse AI markets and assess competition impacts.

41 Conclusion Accepted

As the regulator responsible for promoting competitive markets and tackling anti- competitive behaviour, the CMA should identify abuses of market power and use its powers to stop them. This could take the form of levying fines or requiring the restructuring of proposed mergers. (Paragraph 160) Governance of artificial intelligence (AI) …

Government Response Summary

The government confirmed the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act will equip the CMA with new tools, including powers to impose penalties and new merger reporting requirements for SMS firms. These measures are set to commence in January 2025.

42 Conclusion Accepted

Para 161

AI models and tools rely on access to high-quality input data. The phrase ‘garbage in, garbage out’ is not new, but it is particularly applicable to AI.

Government Response Summary

The government response outlines existing data protection laws and safeguards for automated decision-making, including the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS) and recommendations for human involvement in high-impact generative AI use, without committing to new specific actions.

43 Conclusion Accepted

Para 161

The potential for human error and bias notwithstanding, deployers should not solely rely on outputs produced with AI tools to determine their decision-making, particularly in areas that could affect the rights and standing of the individuals or entities concerned, such as insurance decisions or recruitment. These algorithmic decisions should always …

Government Response Summary

The government states that existing UK data protection law already provides safeguards for individuals, including the right to human review and to contest automated decisions. It also notes the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard requires publishing information on human review and the Generative AI framework recommends human involvement.

44 Conclusion Accepted

Para 162

The Government and future administrations should support the emergence of more AI startups in the UK by ensuring they can access the high-quality datasets they need to innovate. This could involve facilitating access to anonymised public data from data.gov.uk, the NHS and BBC via a National Data Bank, subject to …

Government Response Summary

The government committed to establishing a National Data Library to provide simple, ethical, and secure access to public data assets for researchers and businesses, with work currently underway on its design and implementation. Further detailed recommendations on data access will follow the publication of the AI Opportunities Action Plan.

45 Conclusion Accepted

Para 165

We welcome the Government’s moves to establish a dedicated AI Research Resource and a cluster of supercomputers but are concerned that it has yet to set out further details of how researchers and startups will be able to access the compute they need to maximise the potential benefits of AI …

Government Response Summary

The government is working with UKRI to develop a long-term plan for the UK’s compute needs ahead of the Spring multiyear spending review and will shortly announce details of how researchers will access the AI Research Resource (AIRR) via a bespoke access model.

47 Conclusion Accepted

Para 170

The Black Box Challenge is one of the most paradigm-shifting consequences of AI, as it upends our well-established reliance on explainability and understanding. Given the complexity of currently available and in all likelihood future models, the starting point should be an acknowledgement how little we can understand about how many …

Government Response Summary

The government highlighted the existing Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS) as a tool to provide process-level transparency for algorithmic tools in the public sector, without committing to new thinking or a new regulatory approach regarding the 'Black Box Challenge'.

48 Conclusion Acknowledged

Para 171

The regulators charged with implementing the Government’s high-level AI governance principles should, in their approach to these models and tools, prioritise testing and verifying their outputs, as well seeking to establish—whilst accepting the difficulty of doing so with absolute certainty—how they arrived at them.

Government Response Summary

The government provided a general statement committing to defending AI openness, supporting the open-source ecosystem, and taking steps to improve AI safety, but did not detail specific actions or priorities for regulators regarding testing and verifying AI outputs.

49 Conclusion Acknowledged

The open-source approach has underpinned many technological breakthroughs, including the Internet and AI. Whilst some providers of products and services, such as AI models and their applications, will want to keep elements of their offerings proprietary, a healthy AI marketplace should be sufficiently diverse to support both ‘open’ and ‘closed’ …

Government Response Summary

The government expresses commitment to defending the importance of openness and supporting the UK’s open-source ecosystem while also taking steps to improve AI safety.

50 Conclusion Accepted

Para 176

When procuring AI models for deployment in the public sector the Government and public bodies should utilise those best suited to the task.

Government Response Summary

The government highlighted its existing AI procurement frameworks and committed that CCS and DSIT will review and simplify public sector routes for procuring AI products, rationalise frameworks, and gather buyer feedback to improve the process.

52 Conclusion Accepted

Para 185

The growing volume of litigation relating to alleged use of works protected by copyright to train AI models and tools, and the value of high-quality data needed to train future models, has underlined the need for a sustainable framework that acknowledges the inevitable trade-offs and establishes clear, enforceable rules of …

Government Response Summary

The government acknowledged the need for a sustainable framework and greater clarity on copyright for AI, committing to launch a consultation 'soon' to promote growth in the UK AI sector and creative industries, while also engaging with international partners.

53 Conclusion Accepted

Para 186

The current Government, or its successor administration, should ensure that discussions regarding the use of copyrighted works to train and run AI models are concluded and an implementable approach agreed. It seems inevitable that this will involve the agreement of a financial settlement for past infringements by AI developers, the …

Government Response Summary

The government intends to launch a consultation soon to address uncertainty in the copyright framework for AI, aiming to promote growth in both the AI sector and creative industries, and remains committed to stakeholder engagement and international cooperation.

54 Conclusion Accepted

Para 189

Nobody who uses AI to inflict harm should be exempted from the consequences, whether they are a developer, deployer, or intermediary. The next Government together with sectoral regulators publish guidance on where liability for harmful uses of AI falls under existing law. This should be a cross-Government undertaking. Sectoral regulators …

Government Response Summary

The government intends to introduce proposed legislation to reduce regulatory uncertainty for AI developers, make the statute book fit for the age of AI by appropriately assigning accountability, and ensure regulators have the necessary expertise and resources.

55 Conclusion Accepted

Para 193

AI is already changing the nature of work, and as the technology evolves this process is likely to accelerate, placing some jobs at risk. At the same time, there are productivity benefits to be won, provided people are equipped with the skills to fruitfully utilise AI. This is a process …

Government Response Summary

The government committed to strengthening AI skills through the AI Action Plan, ensuring digital skills development for young people via the DFE’s Curriculum and Assessment Review (final recommendations by Autumn 2025), and developing a comprehensive post-16 education strategy. Skills England will also address national and regional skills gaps by aligning training with employer needs.

57 Conclusion Accepted

Para 202

We welcome the organisation of the AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park and commend the Government on bringing many key actors together. We look forward to subsequent Summits and hope that the consensus and momentum delivered at Bletchley Park can be maintained.

Government Response Summary

The government agrees on sustaining the momentum from the Bletchley Park summit and confirms its continued participation in the AI Summit series, including the AI Seoul Summit (May 2024) and the France AI Action Summit (February 2025).

58 Conclusion Accepted

Para 203

However, looking beyond the AI safety discussion, we do not believe that harmonisation for harmonisation’s sake should be the end goal of international AI governance discussions. A degree of distinction between different regulatory regimes is, in our view, inevitable. Such distinction may be motivated by geopolitics, but it may also …

Government Response Summary

The government agrees that harmonisation for its own sake is not the goal and highlights its ongoing international coordination efforts through the AI Summit series (Bletchley, Seoul, France) and other mechanisms to mitigate AI risks.

59 Conclusion Accepted

Para 204

Future AI Safety Summits must focus on the establishment of international dialogue mechanisms to address current, medium- and longer-term safety risks presented by the growing use of AI; and the sharing of best practice to ensure its potential benefits are realised in all jurisdictions. This should not set us on …

Government Response Summary

The government agrees that a key aim is to sustain momentum from previous AI Safety Summits (Bletchley, Seoul) and supports upcoming summits (France), using these existing international platforms to coordinate efforts on AI safety risks and share best practices.

60 Conclusion Accepted

Para 209

The debate over the existential risk—or lack of it—posed by the increasing prevalence of AI has attracted significant attention. However, the Government’s initial assessment, that such existential risks are high impact but low probability, appears to be accurate. Nevertheless, given the potential consequences should risks highlighted by the AI Safety …

Government Response Summary

The government has established the Central AI Risk Function (CAIRF) and a global Network of Experts to assess and mitigate AI-related risks, including existential ones, and will continue to engage experts through upcoming legislative proposals on Frontier AI Safety.

61 Conclusion Accepted

Para 210

When implementing the principles set out in the AI White Paper regulatory activity should be focused on here-and-now impacts. Assessing and responding to existential risk should primarily be the responsibility of the UK’s national security apparatus, supported by the AI Safety Institute.

Government Response Summary

The government will consult on establishing a regulatory regime to address immediate AI risks and confirms that the Central AI Risk Function (CAIRF) already works closely with the national security community on AI risks with national security implications.

62 Conclusion Deferred

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)

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.