-optimized.jpg){kind=avatar}
UK Government proposals for the regulation of AI would devolve the issue to existing regulators, with support from ‘central functions’. However, many AI contexts are not covered by regulators, such as recruitment, policing, central government itself and parts of the private sector, points out the Ada Lovelace Institute, part of the Nuffield Foundation.
Legal analysis by data rights law firm AWO, commissioned by the Institute, has found that in many contexts, the main protections offered by cross-cutting legislation such as the UK GDPR and the Equality Act may often fail to protect people from harm or give them a viable route to redress. The Institute recommends considering an ‘AI ombudsman’ to support people affected by AI, reviewing protections, legislating to introduce better protections where necessary, and rethinking the Data Protection and Digital Information (DPDI) Bill (by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) due to its implications for AI regulation.
Michael Birtwistle, Associate Director at the Ada Lovelace Institute, said: ‘The Government rightfully recognises that the UK has a unique opportunity to be a world-leader in AI regulation and the Prime Minister should be commended for his global leadership on this issue.
‘However, the UK’s credibility on AI regulation rests on the Government’s ability to deliver a world-leading regulatory regime at home. Efforts towards international coordination are very welcome, but they are not sufficient. The Government must strengthen its domestic proposals for regulation if it wants to be taken seriously on AI and achieve its global ambitions.’
Matt Davies, UK Public Policy Lead at the Ada Lovelace Institute, said: ‘We welcome the Government’s serious engagement with this difficult challenge. The UK’s current proposals have the potential to avoid the drawbacks of a ‘one size fits all’ approach by establishing an adaptable and context-specific regime.
‘However, in their current form they risk failing to adequately protect people and society against the potential harms of AI. We call on the Government to address the current regulatory gaps, empower our regulators, and do more to tackle the urgent risks from cutting-edge foundation models.’
Comment
John Smith, EMEA CTO at Veracode, described regulation for artificial intelligence (AI) as vital but challenging to design, implement and enforce. He said: “The last few months have demonstrated just how fast-moving the technology is; it seems every day we are seeing new ways to use it, both for good and bad. We already live in a world where it is increasingly hard to know truth from fiction, with fake news, conspiracy theories and misinformation rife in the social networks and websites that are a primary source of information for many – AI will only make this more challenging.
“However, if individual countries enact regulations that stifle innovation, they run the risk of being left behind in what is surely the next industrial revolution. Current generative AI models are limited by the training data that they learn from, as these technologies develop and new ones are created – what is needed is global agreement and cooperation on AI regulation. Sadly, the world of today doesn’t seem to be well suited to providing this.”
In a recent speech, Foreign Secretary James Cleverly on chairing the first United Nations Security Council (UNSC) session on AI called for ‘global cooperation’ and mentioned the UK plans to bring world leaders together for a summit on AI safety.
