![]() ![]() In this blog, I offer some preliminary thoughts. I am not only sceptical about this move and its international reception, but also increasingly concerned about a tendency to ‘regulate by Twitter’ and to bullish approaches to regulatory and legal compliance that could well result in squandering a good part of the £100m set aside for the Taskforce. The UK’s Primer Minister is clearly making a move to use ‘world-leadership in AI safety’ as a major plank of his re-election bid in the coming Fall. ![]() A first observation is that this type of investments can be worthwhile, but not at the expense of adequately resourcing regulators facing the tall order of AI regulation. ![]() Most of the activity and investments are not channelled towards existing resource-strained regulators to support them in their task of issuing guidance on how to deal with AI risks and harms-which stems from the white paper-but in digital industrial policy and R&D projects, including a new major research centre on responsible and trustworthy AI and a Foundation Model Taskforce. Perhaps surprisingly, the biggest developments do not concern the regulation of AI under the devolved model described in the ‘pro-innovation’ white paper, but its displacement outside existing regulatory regimes-both in terms of funding, and practical power. I have been closely following developments on AI regulation in the UK, as part of the background research for the joint submission to the public consultation closing on Wednesday (see here and here). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |