AI: International Co-operation
(5 days, 21 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the call by China’s President at the World Artificial Intelligence Conference last week for “extensive international cooperation” regarding the development of AI.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
The Government agree that international co-operation on AI is essential. That is why we play a leading role internationally on AI, including work to support shared prosperity through the UN and OECD and to improve awareness of AI risks via our AI Security Institute and the International AI Safety Report. Given that the transformative scale of AI advances requires a strategic whole of government approach, the Prime Minister is establishing a new AI task force to take this all forward.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her informative Answer. The AI world is dividing into three blocks: the China side, the EU and the US. This is creating divergence, with diverging philosophies on state stability, individual rights and market form. Does the Minister consider that the UK has a convening power that it may use to guide governance of this powerful technology?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
AI can indeed be a powerful force for growth, scientific progress, better public services and sustainable development. We believe we can unlock this potential, working together with other countries, to build trust, to manage the risks and to ensure that the benefits of AI are shared widely. That is why the UK co-ordinates the international network of AISIs, which delivered the International AI Safety Report. We also fund practical partnerships with the OECD, the African Union and south-east Asia to support responsible AI adoption and drive growth worldwide.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, in the light of the news today that one of OpenAI’s agents went rogue in an experiment and attacked another AI start-up, does the Minister agree that this indicates an urgent need for global co-operation to agree safeguards and accountability frameworks? It seems that companies cannot be trusted to control the technology they are developing without this. Furthermore, does this not also indicate the need for us to develop a sovereign AI capability strategy so that we have the influence and expertise to shape these critical global conversations?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
With the AI Security Institute, we have a world-leading, world-class institution that is able to test frontier models and provide advice, including with the National Cyber Security Centre, in order to equip companies against the risks that are prevalent with the advances in these technologies. That is exactly what happened earlier, and we encourage all firms and other organisations to take the mitigations that are necessary to reduce vulnerabilities and increase resilience. On the question of AI sovereignty and technological developments, we are absolutely taking an approach to build out AI capabilities. That is why we have the AI hardware plan to support development in that area, as well as the sovereign AI fund.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson, for bringing this important subject to the House today. Can the Minister tell the House whether the relevant Minister or officials have spoken to trusted international partners before responding to this offer from the President of China? Can she also inform the House, since the former Prime Minister made much of his thawing of relations with China, whether our new Prime Minister will continue with that approach?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The UK is not a member of the World AI Cooperation Organization. We are carefully assessing its implications for UK interests in global AI governance and international technology standards. As yet, we have not seen any detailed proposals for its mandate or activities. We do believe that co-operation and dialogue is essential, including dialogue with China on all these matters.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in assessing the CCP’s AI global initiative, which the noble Baroness just referred to, will she look carefully at the 29 member states of that initiative, which include Putin’s Russia, the military dictatorship in Myanmar and regimes in Serbia, Cuba, Belarus and Nicaragua? Although it is important that we should co-operate with like-minded nations, will she reflect on how the Chinese Communist Party regime has deployed AI-powered facial recognition, deploys hundreds of millions of CCTV cameras in a surveillance state and has powered biometric harvesting and digital tracking to monitor its population? Is the alliance that we need not with like-minded democratic nations living up to the standards set by the Council of Europe’s suggestions on proper guardrails? Should we not be doing what the noble Baroness said before and developing our own sovereign approach to AI?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We are indeed co-operating with many like-minded allies and countries —for example, the G7 and the OECD, to which the noble Lord referred—on taking forward the AI principles. Those agreed standards are vital for the governance and the effective adoption of AI in all countries. As I mentioned in reference to the question from the noble Earl, we are not a member of the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization. I did review its membership before answering this Question, so I am aware of that. This is a global technology; it is providing opportunities and threats globally. It is very important that, in respect of the UK, we provide advice to our companies and the public sector, so that we can be prepared both for the risks and the opportunities.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the Labour and then the Conservative Benches.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I hope we will raise our sights above some of our traditional disputes. The threat we face is a worldwide one, as is recognised with what happened with the attack on Hugging Face by OpenAI. This is truly a threat to the whole world, regardless of where we come from politically, and we must therefore look to get the maximum co-operation, on a worldwide basis, that we can secure. Could we, as a starter, start to write out what principles and what guidance we should seek to put into AI that should be minimum standards for a world application?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
As I mentioned, the Government co-operate with others in numerous multilateral forums. We have taken forward the OECD principles in many of these and they include some of aspects to which my noble friend referred. We will continue to talk to allies about all these aspects. On risks, it is important to emphasise that we are both providing advice to companies on what measures they can take to improve their resilience and taking new powers, through the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, to protect our essential services from attacks, wherever they emanate from.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, should China, or indeed any other country, wish to co-operate with us on AI policy, whom should they call? The Minister at DBIST, DCMS or the Cabinet Office, or the Prime Minister’s AI adviser at the Office for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We set out yesterday in our Written Ministerial Statement the allocation of responsibilities under the Government going forward. The strategy will be looked after by the Cabinet Office, which is taking the lead for AI strategy and public sector AI adoption. The Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade will take on responsibility for the science and innovation portfolio. As I mentioned at the beginning, it is a whole of government approach. You will find discussion of AI policy implications in every sectoral dimension, from financial services to maritime, because it is a technology that affects all areas. That is another reason why we need to look at regulation with a sector by sector approach, because it affects different sectors differently.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, there can be no greater motivation for extensive international co-operation on AI than when it comes to safety. Other noble Lords have referred to this, but it is worth reiterating in detail that, last night, the co-founder of OpenAI, Sam Altman, announced to the world that its latest next-generation version GPT-5.6 Sol, and an even more capable pre-release model were involved in an unprecedented cyber incident and independently executed a complex cyber attack. Surely the time for giving advice to the tech companies is over. I welcome the Government’s Bill on cyber security and resilience, but it does not extend to AI. Will the UK lead the way and co-ordinate a global agreement on the transparency, oversight and regulation of AI?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We will continue to build on the work of discussing AI safety, adoption and governance through existing multilateral and multi-stakeholder initiatives, such as those I referred to before, including the G7, the OECD Global Partnership on AI and the Council of Europe, among others. That is the approach we will be taking forward. My noble friend raises very important questions, and in respect of online safety, our online safety regulator co-operates closely with other regulators to look at the implications of AI for online safety and will continue to do so.