Third Report - Governance of artificial intelligence (AI)
Select Committee
Science, Innovation and Technology Committee
HC 38
28 May 2024
Government Response (AI assessment · 62 of 62 classified)
Accepted
43
Acknowledged
10
Deferred
4
Rejected
4
Recommendations
0 resultsNo recommendations found matching the selected filters. Clear filters
Conclusions (4) Observations and findings — click to expand
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.
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.
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.
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.