UK Government’s Doomer Summit: Apocalypse vs. Innovation
Chaos and Confusion The Disorganized Disaster of Britain's AI Summit
UK’s AI Summit A Chaotic and Doom-Obsessed Disaster
The UK government has a reputation for being indecisive when it comes to climate policy, commitment to oil drilling, and air pollution. However, there seems to be a sudden shift in their outlook. Senior British politicians are now on a mission to save the world from the dangers of artificial superintelligence. They believe that if left unchecked, AI could lead to bioweapon creation, support autocrats, undermine democracy, and even threaten the financial system. Deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden, in his grim tone, admits, “I do not believe we can hold back the tide.”
This doomsday rhetoric aims to gather support for the UK government’s global summit on AI governance, scheduled for November 1 and 2. They want to turn the UK into the intellectual and geographical home of global AI safety regulation. However, just before the summit begins, it appears to be both gloomy and underwhelming. Reports suggest that the flagship initiative will be a voluntary global register of large AI models, which lacks teeth. Its effectiveness relies on the cooperation of large US and Chinese tech companies, who rarely see eye to eye.
So, what can we expect from the rest of the summit? The US government is annoyed by the presence of Chinese officials, and UK companies and investors in the AI sector are frustrated by their exclusion from the discussions. The government’s obsession with AI-driven cataclysm overlooks the immediate real-world risks and potential benefits of the technology. The British AI scene suggests that the government should focus on supporting British AI companies to compete and thrive amidst rapid changes and huge investments in AI.
According to the summit agenda, the discussions will cover two types of AI: narrow, potentially dangerous capabilities, and “frontier AI” that surpasses large language models like OpenAI’s ChatGPT. However, this narrows down the list of attendees significantly, mainly consisting of American and Chinese companies. Remarkably, not a single British AI expert or executive has been invited to the summit, except for Google DeepMind, causing frustration within the UK AI industry.
The absence of British companies at the summit raises concerns about the concentration of power in the hands of a few US tech giants, leaving the UK at a disadvantage. The government’s narrow focus on frontier models ignores the potential of startups, academic teams, and existing applications of AI. It also disregards the importance of open-source language models, which may slightly lag behind the best available but can be utilized by anyone.
Although the UK government has promised over $1 billion in AI-related initiatives, critics argue that this amount is relatively small in the global context. Powering up the chip and AI industries with limited funding and starting behind the US and Asia will be a significant challenge. Additionally, the lack of domestic AI regulation puts the UK behind other countries such as the European Union, the US, China, and Brazil. Mark Brakel from the Future of Life Institute calls it “pretty embarrassing.”
Critics of the summit suspect that it is driven more by domestic politics than a genuine commitment to AI governance. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who trails in the polls, is using the summit as a chance to demonstrate leadership on a global scale. The choice of venue, Bletchley Park, adds to this perception. While historically significant for its role in World War II cryptography, it is inconveniently located and associated with the concrete blandness of Milton Keynes.
Despite the criticism and doubts surrounding the summit, some hope remains. The UK government plans to pitch an AI Safety Institute and propose a register of frontier models to assess potential risks. However, it’s unclear how these initiatives will significantly impact the AI landscape as major US companies have already committed to the American government’s safety pledge. The summit’s success may be limited to achieving a broad consensus on the most significant risks and areas of focus.
As the world awaits the outcomes of the UK summit, it is essential for the UK government to demonstrate how it can harness the power of AI and foster innovation. The government’s role should not be limited to prophesying doom but also finding ways to leverage AI’s potential. After all, the rest of the world looks to the United Kingdom and the United States for guidance on this matter. As of now, the UK has little to offer, and it’s imperative for them to catch up.
