![](https://www.computerweekly.com/visuals/ComputerWeekly/Hero Images/AI-artificial-intelligence-virtual-mind-fotolia.jpg)
AI Action Summit: UK and US refuse to sign inclusive AI statement
www.computerweekly.com
The UK and US governments refused to sign a joint international declaration on inclusive and sustainable artificial intelligence (AI) as the AI Action Summit drew to a close.A total of 61 countries including France, China, India, Japan, Australia and Canada have signed a Statement on Inclusive and Sustainable Artificial Intelligence for People and the Planet at the AI Action Summit in Paris, which affirmed a number of shared priorities.This includes promoting AI accessibility to reduce digital divides between rich and developing countries; ensuring AI is open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure and trustworthy, taking into account international frameworks for all; avoiding market concentrations around the technology; reinforcing international cooperation; making AI sustainable; and encouraging deployments that positively shape labour markets.This summit has highlighted the importance of reinforcing the diversity of the AI ecosystem, it said.It has laid an open, multi-stakeholder and inclusive approach that will enable AI to be human rights-based, human-centric, ethical, safe, secure and trustworthy, it continued, adding that this rests on countries beginning to have multi-stakeholder dialogues and cooperation on AI governance.We underline the need for a global reflection integrating inter alia questions of safety, sustainable development, innovation, respect of international laws including humanitarian law and human rights law and the protection of human rights, gender equality, linguistic diversity, protection of consumers and of intellectual property rights.While the UK and US governments have not immediately outlined the exact reasons for their refusal to sign the statement, a spokesperson for prime minister Keir Starmer has said the government would only ever sign up to initiatives that are in UK national interests.During the summit, US vice-president JD Vance said that excessive regulation of the AI sector could kill a transformative industry, adding that we need international regulatory regimes that foster the creation of AI technology rather than strangle it.Aside from European regulation, he also criticised cooperation with China, as well as any regulation that threatens the interests of US companies. We feel very strongly that AI must remain free from ideological bias and that American AI will not be co-opted into a tool for authoritarian censorship, said Vance.The Trump administration is troubled by reports that some foreign governments are considering tightening the screws on US tech companies with international footprints, he added. America cannot and will not accept that, and we think its a terrible mistake, not just for the United States of America, but for your own countries.The AI Action Summit follows the inauguralAI Safety Summit hosted by the UK government at Bletchley Park in November 2023, and theAI Seoul Summit inSouth Korea in May 2024. While both previous summits were criticised for a lack of inclusivity, they largely focused on risks associated with the technology and placed an emphasis on improving its safety through international scientific cooperation and research.In contrast, the AI Action Summit has seen politicians and industry figures decry the burden of AI red tape, while simultaneously committing hundreds of billions of further investment to AI-related infrastructure, which aims to rapidly scale the technology.Independent fact-checking charity Full Fact criticised the UK governments refusal to sign the statement, saying that it risks undercutting Britains hard-won credibility as a world leader for safe, ethical and trustworthy AI.We need bolder government action to protect people from corrosive AI-generated misinformation that can damage public health and disrupt democracy at unprecedented speed and scale, said Andrew Dudfield,Adam Leon Smith an AI expert from BCS, the Chartered Institute for IT, added: When we surveyed technology experts last year, 88% said it was important that the UK government takes a lead in shaping global ethical standards in AI and other high-stakes technologies.Whether thats through a declaration or not, the worlds richest countries will ultimately need to show they can put geo-politics aside, balance AI innovation with safety, and be responsible enough to work together at this critical moment in human history, he said.Read more about artificial intelligenceGoogle drops pledge not to develop AI weapons: Google has dropped an ethical pledge to not develop artificial intelligence systems that can be used in weapon or surveillance systems.Government opens up bidding for AI growth zones: As part of its AI opportunities action plan, the government is encouraging local authorities to put in bids for AI growth zones.DWP fairness analysis reveals bias in AI fraud detection system: Information about peoples age, disability, marital status and nationality influences decisions to investigate benefit claims for fraud, but the Department for Work and Pensions says there are no immediate concerns of unfair treatment.Given the emphasis placed on deregulation by Vance and other key political figures during the summit, some argued they are setting the stage for a race to the bottom on AI regulation.Jeni Tennison, executive director of non-profit Connected by Data, said: Its unsurprising that the current US administration would decline to sign a commitment to more inclusive, equitable and sustainable AI given their version of free speech blacklists these terms. Its unclear if the UK government objects to any particular part of the summit statement, or is simply trying to stay on the good side of Trump and US investors.Commenting on Vances confused speech about excessive regulation, she added: He reinforced the USs deregulatory, race-to-the-bottom trajectory for AI, while championing insurgent competition and worker voice: the very things regulation is needed for.Sandra Wachter, a professor of technology and regulation at the Oxford Internet Institute, said rhetoric arguing that regulation will stifle innovation is misleading. Regulation is trying to make AI less biased, more explainable and less harmful, she said.Who does really win when there is no regulation? How is your life improved if sexist AI decides that your child is not allowed to attend university? How is your life improved when opaque AI fires you and you dont even receive an explanation? How is your life improved if AI is allowed to spread misinformation on the web? How is your life improved if we use unsafe and untested AI in healthcare?I think we really need to question this rhetoric, she said. Who wins if there is no regulation? Is it eight billionaires or the other eight billion people?Criticising the content of the statement itself, Gaia Marcus, director of the Ada Lovelace Institute, said it fails to build on the mission of making AI safe and trustworthy, and the safety commitments of previous summits. There are no tools to ensure tech companies are held accountable for harms. And there is a growing gap between public expectations of safety and government action to regulate.However, Marcus did note that the summit has offered some alternatives for the future. It proposes a future where AI is used sustainably through the Coalition for Sustainable AI, she said. And a future where the technologies, tooling and infrastructure are widely accessible for use in the public interest through the AI foundation ifMarcus added that governments must build and invest in alternatives to ensure the value and benefits of tech advances are felt by everyone in a way that avoids paying extortionate rent to a few large companies for a generation.Mike Bracken, a founding partner at digital transformation consultancy Public Digital, said while the UK and US governments refusal to sign is a visible sign of tension, it should not overshadow the actual, progressive delivery-based outcomes of the summit, such as the sustainability coalition and the public interest AI foundation, known as Current AI.I have attended many government-backed events which result in statements and handshakes and warm words; the ones that really matter are the ones that result in institutions, money, change and delivery, he said, adding that the real success of the summit is in how it has recast AI as a public good through these initiatives. Its not simply seen as an extension of monopolistic technology providers, said Bracken.He added that hes much more concerned about getting institutions ready for public AI delivery than signing statements, noting that diplomatic relations will improve as a result of working together through the other channels established during the summit.I dont mean to diminish to the communique, but the institutional funds moved by France to rapidly embrace AI, the support of that by the European Union, the creation and backing for open source tooling, and the quite detailed approaches towards creating data sharing agreements for public bodies they are all far more important than the communique, in my opinion, said Bracken.
0 Comments
·0 Shares
·7 Views