Chi’s Wrath: But the president of the Commons Science and Technology Committee, Chi Onwurah, said that AI users and the wider audience were “concerned” by the government’s decision not to sign the declaration, “in particular being previous summits. “The same day, Patrick Vallance told his committee” there is no AI bill “, it suggested that the government” educated “its position.
Listen to Peter: Kyle’s response echoed the lines of n ° 10 Tuesday. While “a lot was carried out this week,” said Kyle: “This government puts national security first, a problem we wanted to raise at the top, which prevented us from signing the overall agreement.”
Not enough: In a follow -up statement, Onwurah said that “the motivations on this subject remain clear, as is the national security and global governance problems cited by the Secretary of State”. “The government must urgently clarify its position and reassure itself that an AI security and citizens’ approach has not been ruled out,” she said.
At the fringe: This decision also dominated the AI fringe through the city. Andrew Dudfield, Facts AI responsible, told a panel that the United Kingdom’s reasoning was “unclear” and wondered if the United Kingdom was going to be “the free market” to be reconciled in Trump.
Another view: But IT Wendy Hall, who was in Paris, said that he was told “categorically” to government sources that it was not a question of appeasing the American president. She praised the United Kingdom’s position on world governance and security as “quite courageous” – and qualified the final declaration of “platitudes”.
Sino time: Hall has also thought about changing geopolitical dynamics. In Bletchley, the Chinese minister was excluded from the day of leaders. In Paris, he had a central role (even if the Pays AI Embryonic Safety Institute was not invited to join the World Network). The United Kingdom could have a role of “soft power” to play as it is played, suggested Hall.
Politices
