Regulated by the regulators

First, whether you are an investor or innovator, citizen, creative or consumer, surely what you require – what we all require – is clarity, certainty and consistency when it comes to how AI is addressed in any sector of our economy and society? How does “domain specific” assure these three vital considerations? 

The government continues to assert that most AI systems should be regulated by the existing regulators. The minister pointed out that “they are the experts,” also, rightly, stating that “they need the AI skills to be able to do it”.

It is this point around AI skills where the second difficulty lies. At a time where AI skills, particularly in certain parts of the ecosystem, are in seriously short supply, how can it be hoped that every domain-specific regulator can acquire the AI talent required to deliver to this governmental ask? 

If, for example Ofcom and Ofgem are competing for the same data scientist and, say, Ofcom wins, how does that help the broader economy, broader society or a consistent approach across the piece? It does not.

Alongside consistency, I also struggle to see how such a domain-specific approach can deal with the areas of our economy and society where no competent regulator exists. If no competent regulator, even if someone becomes aware that they are being “AI’d” they will find themselves with no obvious route for redress.

Collaboration and alignment

We were also informed that the government is working with regulators to drive collaboration and alignment across the regulatory domains through, for example, the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum’s AI and Digital Advisory Hub and the Regulatory Innovation Office. 

These two organisations are good, but is the government not already setting up the potential for confusion by pointing to at least two different bodies as the “coordinating” or guiding mind?

My colleague, Tim Clement-Jones, quoted the secretary of state for technology, Peter Kyle, from February this year: “AI is a powerful tool, and powerful tools can be misused. State-sponsored hackers are using AI to write malicious code and identify system vulnerabilities, increasing the sophistication and efficiency of their attacks. Criminals are using AI deepfakes to assist in fraud, breaching security by impersonating officials.

“These aren’t distant possibilities. They are real, tangible harms, happening right now.”

Supporting my earlier call, he asked, if that is the case, why is the government not taking a much more urgent approach to the introduction of regulation?

The minister countered this call for urgency by claiming that, “It would be very wrong to try to rush this. A consultation that brings in all the relevant parties will be launched, and that will be the time when we can make sure that we get this absolutely right.”

Parliamentary scrutiny

Viscount Stansgate asked an important question about whether the bill, when it comes, will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. This would allow both Houses of Parliament to look in more detail at these very important issues? The minister referred to the consultation and its need for widespread involvement but didn’t address the question of pre-legislative scrutiny.

My colleague, Jonathan Camrose, took the opportunity to mention some recent correspondence with the EU Commission – on 3 July, over 150 major EU businesses wrote to the European Commission seeking a pause on the roll out of the EU’s AI Act. They objected, among other things, to its rigidity, complexity, overregulation and threat to competitiveness. He asked what the government made of these objections?

Answering, the minister again highlighted that the UK has, so far, taken a different approach by “proposing regulation largely through the existing regulators rather than having everything in one place”.

He went on to insist that the delay is positive saying, “If we rush the consultation, we will get this wrong; if we take the time and do it right, we could end up having the best regulation in this area, which will nonetheless need to change, as this advances very rapidly.”

Sovereign AI

Baroness Kidron asked what progress the government has made in respect of its sovereign AI aspirations. In answer, the minister set out some spending, not least that the government has allocated up to £2bn for AI, £500m of which is on sovereign AI, with that unit just now coming into being. 

He also set out a programme on the creative content exchange in the creative industries sector that is specifically designed to look at how data from the creative industries can be pulled together so that it is easy to license it, easy to understand what has happened to it, and, therefore, easier to use it appropriately in an AI setting.

So, no UK AI legislation and no consultation this side of the summer. When I expressed my disappointment that I couldn’t add a government AI Bill to my summer reading, the minister did say he would be happy to offer me some other books for my holiday reading list. I will look forward to receiving them and will surely pass on any classics.