Asked by
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to regulate
artificial intelligence technologies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Science, Innovation and Technology () (Lab)
My Lords, as set out in the King's Speech, we will establish
legislation to ensure the safe development of AI models by
introducing targeted requirements on a handful of companies
developing the most powerful AI systems. The legislation will
also place the AI Safety Institute on a statutory footing,
providing it with a permanent remit to enhance the safety of AI.
We will consult publicly on the details of the proposals before
bringing forward legislation.
(Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply and
congratulate her on her appointment. There is no doubt that AI
will be an important part of the economic growth that is this
Government's priority, but there are also growing concerns about
the potential harms being caused by this technology, in
particular around the creation of deepfake content to pervert the
outcome of elections. What is the Government's view on that
potential harm to democracy, and are there any plans to extend
the regulation to political advertising, as recommended in the
2020 report to this House from the Democracy and Digital
Technologies Select Committee?
(Lab)
I thank my noble friend for those good wishes. Of course, he is
raising a really important issue of great concern to all of us.
During the last election, we felt that the Government were well
prepared to ensure the democratic integrity of our UK elections.
We did have robust systems in place to protect against
interference, through the Defending Democracy Taskforce and the
Joint Election and Security Preparedness unit. We continue to
work with the Home Office and the security services to assess the
impact of that work. Going forward, the Online Safety Act goes
further by putting new requirements on social media platforms to
swiftly remove illegal misinformation and disinformation,
including where it is AI-generated, as soon as it becomes
available. We are still assessing the need for further
legislation in the light of the latest intelligence, but I assure
my noble friend that we take this issue extremely seriously. It
affects the future of our democratic process, which I know is
vital to all of us.
(LD)
My Lords, I welcome the creation of an AI opportunities plan,
announced by the Government, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight,
says, we must also tackle the risks. In other jurisdictions
across the world, including the EU, AI-driven live facial
recognition technology is considered to seriously infringe the
right to privacy and have issues with accuracy and bias, and is
being banned or restricted for both law enforcement and business
use. Will the Government, in their planned AI legislation,
provide equivalent safeguards for UK citizens and ensure their
trust in new technology?
(Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question and for all the work he
has done on the AI issue, including his new book, which I am sure
is essential reading over the summer for everybody. I should say
that several noble Lords in this Chamber have written books on
AI, so noble Lords might want to consider that for their holiday
reading.
The noble Lord will know that the use and regulation of live
facial recognition is for each country to decide. We already have
some regulations about it, but it is already governed by data
protection, equality and human rights legislation, supplemented
by specific police guidance. It is absolutely vital that its use
is only when it is necessary, proportionate and fair. We will
continue to look at the legislation and at whether privacy is
being sufficiently protected. That is an issue that will come
forward when the future legislation is being prepared.
(Con)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that the way to regulate AI is
principles-based, outcomes-focused and input-understood, and
always, where appropriate, remunerated? To that end, what is the
Government's plan to support our creative industries—the
musicians, writers and artists who make such a contribution to
our economy, society and well-being, and whose IP and copyright
are currently being swallowed up by gen AI, with no respect, no
consent and no remuneration? Surely it is time to legislate.
(Lab)
The noble Lord raises a really important point here and again I
acknowledge his expertise on this issue. It is a complex and
challenging area and we understand the importance of it. I can
assure the noble Lord that it remains a priority for this
Government and that we are determined to make meaningful progress
in this area. We believe in both human-centred creativity and the
potential of AI to open new creative frontiers. Finding the right
balance between innovation and protection for those creators and
for the ongoing viability of the creative industries will require
thoughtful engagement and consultation. That is one of the things
we will do when we consult on the new legislation.
(CB)
My Lords, artificial intelligence poses a risk not only to
high-profile issues such as existential threats and safety, but
also potentially to public standards—a matter on which the new
Government have made many statements. Areas such as objectivity
and accountability are potentially undermined through the use of
AI for official decision-making. Can the Minister confirm that
those aspects of the risk posed by AI will also be properly
considered as steps are taken to move towards regulation?
(Lab)
The noble Lord is right that there are issues around the risks in
the way he has spelled out. There are still problems around the
risks to accuracy of some AI systems. We are determined to push
forward to protect people from those risks, while recognising the
enormous benefits that there are from introducing AI. The noble
Lord will know I am sure that it has a number of positive
benefits in areas such as the health service, diagnosing patients
more quickly—for example, AI can detect up to 13% more breast
cancers than humans can. So there are huge advantages, but we
must make sure that whatever systems are in place are properly
regulated and that the risks are factored into that. Again, that
will be an issue we will debate in more detail when the draft
legislation comes before us.
(Con)
My Lords, let me start by warmly welcoming the Minister to her
new, richly deserved Front-Bench post. I know that she will find
the job fascinating. I suspect she will find it rather demanding
as well, but I look forward to working with her.
I have noted with great interest the Government's argument that
more AI-specific regulation will encourage more investment in AI
in the country. That would be most welcome, but what do the
Government make of the enormous difference between AI investment
to date in the UK versus in the countries of the European Union
subject to the AI Act? In the same vein, what do the Government
make of Meta's announcement last week that it is pausing some of
its AI training activities because of the cumbersome and not
always very clear regulation that is part of the AI Act?
(Lab)
Again, I thank the noble Viscount for his good wishes and welcome
him to his new role. He is right to raise the comparison and,
while the EU has introduced comprehensive legislation, we instead
want to bring forward highly targeted legislation that focuses on
the safety risks posed by the most powerful models. We are of
course committed to working closely with the EU on AI and we
believe that co-ordinating with international partners —the EU,
the US and other global allies—is critical to making sure that
these measures are effective.
(Lab)
My Lords, I also express my good wishes to the Minister and say
that my noble friend Lord Knight has raised an exceptionally
timely Question on what is, increasingly, a major challenge for
the UK: AI. I was pleased to work with my noble friend
recently—or at least a few years ago now—on the Future of Work
Commission. My area of concern is work. Can the Minister expand
further on the use of regulation and the timeline, if possible?
Does she have concerns about the potential loss of employment,
despite the many opportunities?
(Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. He is right that there
are huge opportunities from applications of AI in the workplace,
but also a number of areas of cause for concern. As he knows,
there have been very worrying cases where people have been sacked
by a computer, sometimes incorrectly. We want to make sure that
that is not possible in future and that people have more rights
to be dealt with by a human being rather than by a machine.
This was an issue that came up for a great deal of debate in the
last data protection Bill, which did not make it through the
wash-up, but the new smart data and digital information Bill,
announced in the King's Speech, will hopefully pick up some of
those issues and we will look at how we can ensure that workers
are protected.
