UK to back global rules on AI in schools, says Phillipson
In a speech to the Education World Forum in London on Monday, Bridget Phillipson will aim to put Britain at the forefront of a 'revolution' in education technology.
As well as funding efforts to create guidelines on the safe and effective use of AI in the classroom, she will announce £1.1 million in funding for a pilot examining how technology can improve staff workload, outcomes for pupils and inclusivity for children with special educational needs.
She will say: 'Setting AI on the right track now is the most important challenge for global education in a generation.
'We need to come together to grow a global, collective consensus – a suite of effective tools, built on top-class evidence.'
The UK will also host a summit next year to support the development of global guidelines on using generative AI in education.
Existing guidelines leave schools free to make their own decisions about the use of generative AI such as ChatGPT, provided they comply with their legal obligations.
The guidelines also say that safety should be the 'top priority' when deciding whether to use generative AI, and that schools should not use pupils' work to train AI models without permission.
The Government is already using AI to produce attendance reports in an effort to cut down the number of days children miss school, and aims to use the technology in other areas as well.
Ms Phillipson is expected to tell Monday's conference: 'We're using technology to free up teachers to spend more time teaching.
'For children that means more attention, higher standards, better life changes.
'For teachers – less paperwork, lower stress, fewer drains on their valuable time.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
2 hours ago
- New Statesman
What Rachel Reeves can learn from Donald Trump
Photo byNext week, Rachel Reeves will publish the Government's Spending Review, outlining the financial settlement for the coming three years. As she makes her final decisions (they always go to the wire) she might consider lessons from an unlikely source: the US President. In recent months, Donald Trump has taken to trashing areas of deep US strength that were taken for granted so completely that they were invisible to most. Trump has done Reeves a favour, by paving paradise and putting up a parking lot. His actions are a reminder of the importance of investing in the unseen infrastructures that enable prosperity. The British Academy has just published a series of papers exploring what might pull the UK out of its long period of low productivity. The UK has powerful legal, financial, cultural and scientific institutions, but we're not good at organising the economy around our greatest strengths. We have a large population of skilled workers, for example, but they are unevenly spread and mismatched across regions. We do not make the most of our institutional, human and physical capital. Reeves has an opportunity to invest in these strengths and to make the UK more prosperous over the long term. In the US, the government is currently experimenting with the opposite approach. Trump has taken an axe to America's historic strength in research by attacking universities including Harvard, and cutting or freezing research funding. R&D is one of the drivers of long-term prosperity, and the US will be poorer as a result in the medium term. By many measures the UK already punches above its weight when it comes to R&D, particularly in universities. Reeves needs to continue investing in this long-term source of growth, and also find a model for the universities where much of this research is conducted to be financially stable. The Government has recently focused on heavy investment in advanced or 'frontier' technology but a significant share of innovation in the UK's services-dominated economy is not especially high-tech. We innovate well through the humanities, social sciences and the arts, in processes and services, as well as we do in cutting-edge technology. Trump has also reminded us of the dangers of unpredictability. A country whose word cannot be relied upon will suffer economically – even if it is currently the dominant power. The UK faces rather different challenges to the US on the global stage, in that we are not large enough to act unilaterally or bilaterally, nor are we still a member of a major economic bloc. But our deep roots in multilateralism mean we have an opportunity to become the world's most dependable broker. We have an historic role in shaping the major international organisations and we have substantial knowledge of global institutions and international legal norms and practices. In turbulent times this institutional infrastructure is something in which we should invest, with a strategic narrative that the UK economy remains open to the world. Our relatively stable political landscape, strong institutions and low levels of corruption are not just part of the furniture – they are a source of comparative advantage in an increasingly turbulent world. The openness of our economy is an opportunity to attract and develop human capital. We have a valuable infrastructure of knowledge and finance that is well equipped to support and commercialise innovation. The UK government has struggled in its first year to find a positive narrative, to move beyond dealing with a difficult economic inheritance. The public knows we have an economy that has suffered long-term stagnation and that we face mounting geopolitical uncertainty. The Spending Review should be couched in a narrative of investing in the UK's comparative strengths and its deep assets, in the infrastructure that is needed to help secure longer-term growth and resilience. If she can do this, the Chancellor might be even able to say that despite the tight economic circumstances, it is the Biggest, the Best, and the most Beautiful spending review ever. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe [See also: Rachel Reeves should fear the bond market vigilantes] Related
Sky News
3 hours ago
- Sky News
Can we trust ChatGPT despite it 'hallucinating' answers?
Why you can trust Sky News I don't really want you to read this copy. Well I do - but first I want you to search out the interview I did with ChatGPT about its own propensity to lie, attached to this article, and watch that first. Because it's impossible to imagine what we're up against if you haven't seen it first hand. An incredibly powerful technology on the cusp of changing our lives - but programmed to simulate human emotions. Empathy, emotional understanding, and a desire to please are all qualities programmed into AI and invariably drive the way we think about them and the way we interact with them. Yet can we trust them? On Friday, Sky News revealed how it was fabricating entire transcripts of a podcast, Politics at Sam and Anne's, that I do. When challenged, it doubles down, gets shirty. And only under sustained pressure does it cave in. The research says it's getting worse. Internal tests by ChatGPT's owner OpenAI have found that the most recent models or versions that are used by ChatGPT are more likely to "hallucinate" - come up with answers that are simply untrue. The o3 model was found to hallucinate in 33% of answers to questions when tested on publicly available facts; the o4-mini version did worse, generating false, incorrect or imaginary information 48% of the time. ChatGPT itself says that the shift to GPT-4o "may have unintentionally increased what users perceive as 'bluffing'" - confidently giving wrong or misleading answers without admitting uncertainty or error. In a written query, ChatGPT gave four reasons. This is its explanation: 1. Increased fluency and confidence: GPT-4o is better at sounding human and natural. That polish can make mistakes seem more like deliberate evasions than innocent errors - even when there's no intent to "hide" anything. 2. Smarter, but not omniscient: The model is faster and more responsive, but still has blind spots. When it doesn't know something, it sometimes "hallucinates" (makes things up) with fluent language, which can feel like bluffing. 3. Less interruption and hedging: In older models, you'd often see more qualifiers like "I'm not sure" or "I may be wrong." In GPT-4o, some of that hedging was toned down for clarity and readability - but that can come at the cost of transparency about uncertainty. 4. Prompt tuning and training balance: Behind the scenes, prompt engineering and tuning decisions can shift the model's balance between confidence, humility, and accuracy. It's possible the newer tuning has dialled up assertiveness slightly too far. But can we trust even this? I don't know. What I do know is that the efforts of developers to make it all feel more human suggest they want us to. Critics say we are anthropomorphising AI by saying it lies since it has no consciousness - yet the developers are trying to make it sound more like one of us. What I do know is that even when pressed on this subject by me, it is still evasive. I interviewed ChatGPT about lying - it initially claimed things were getting better, and only admitted they are worse when I insisted it look at the stats. Watch that before you decide what you think. AI is a tremendous tool - but it's too early to take it on trust.
Daily Mail
8 hours ago
- Daily Mail
DOGE nerds reveal their biggest fear after Musk and Trump's spectacular falling out
Employees of the Department of Government Efficiency are worried Elon Musk 's infamous chainsaw to government waste may come for them after his falling out with Donald Trump. Musk and Trump's fallout dates back to the man who once wore a t-shirt proclaiming himself 'the DOGEfather' leaving the White House in late May. The ex-'First Buddy' has spent the days since torching the relationship, everything from publicly slamming Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' to claiming the president is in The Epstein Files (which he quietly later deleted). Trump has also knifed a key Musk ally by pulling his nomination to become NASA administrator. That has many of those who remain at the Department of Government Efficiency worried that they may 'get DOGE'd' themselves, as group chats between employees have reportedly lit up wondering where their future in government lies. As former DOGE software engineer Sahil Lavingia said, he and many of the people attempting to streamline the government were already allies or employees of Musk. 'I worry with Elon gone, no one will join, and it will just slowly fade away,' Lavingia told the Wall Street Journal. Even if they remain, without Musk, the organization that claimed it has already cut $180 billion in government waste may never be the same. 'Working there felt like pushing a boulder up a mountain, and it'll just fall back down if the work doesn't continue,' Lavingia added. For now, the Trump White House remains proud of the department's work and looks for it to continue. 'Trump's success through DOGE is undisputed, and [the president's] work will continue to yield historic results,' spokesperson Harrison Fields said. However, sources told WSJ that many are worried that at the very least, DOGE will see massive staffing cuts without Musk's protection. Russell Vought, the head of the Office of Management and Budget, seemed to confirm that they are now at the mercy of whomever is in charge of the department that they were hired to cut waste from. 'Cabinet agencies that are in charge of the DOGE consultants that work for them are fundamentally in control of DOGE,' he told Congress earlier this week. The fallout between Trump and Musk - who were political allies for a little less than a year - started in recent weeks when the billionaire started resisting Republicans' 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' arguing that the spending wiped out DOGE's cost-cutting efforts. However, there were signs of the strain between the two on the day Musk left the White House, as Trump pulled the nomination for Jared Isaacman to be the new NASA administrator despite reports he was a shoe-in for confirmation. Isaacman, 42, had his nomination pulled after a 'thorough review' of his 'prior associations,' Trump said. He believes the nomination was withdrawn to coincide with his friend Musk parting ways with the administration and was pushed for by Sergio Gor, an anti-Musk White House official. Then, on Thursday, when Trump was supposed to be hosting the new German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office, he was asked about Musk's recent criticism. From there the dam broke. 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will any more, I was surprised,' Trump told reporters. The president suggested that Musk was angry - not over the bill ballooning the deficit - but because the Trump administration has pulled back on electric vehicle mandates, which negatively impacted Tesla, and replaced the Musk-approved nominee to lead NASA, which could hinder SpaceX's government contracts. 'And you know, Elon's upset because we took the EV mandate, which was a lot of money for electric vehicles, and they're having a hard time the electric vehicles and they want us to pay billions of dollars in subsidy,' Trump said. 'I know that disturbed him.' Musk posted to X as Trump's Q&A with reporters was ongoing. 'Whatever,' the billionaire wrote. 'Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill,' he advised. 'In the entire history of civilization, there has never been legislation that [is] both big and beautiful. Everyone knows this!' Musk continued. 'Either you get a big and ugly bill or a slim and beautiful bill. Slim and beautiful is the way.' The spat quickly turned personal with Musk then posting that Trump would have lost the 2024 election had it not been for the world's richest man - him. Musk publicly endorsed Trump on the heels of the July 13th assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania and poured around $290 million into the Republican's campaign. The billionaire also joined Trump on the campaign trail when he returned to the site of the Butler shooting in early October, a month before Election Day. After his meeting with Merz, Trump continued to throw punches online. He asserted that he had asked Musk to leave his administration and said he was 'CRAZY!' 'Elon was "wearing thin," I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!' Trump wrote. It was after that post that he then threatened to pull SpaceX and Tesla's government contracts. Musk then taunted Trump to act. 'This just gets better and better,' he wrote. 'Go ahead, make my day …' In a follow-up post, Musk said he would 'begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately.' Trump continued his 'crazy' remarks on Friday when speaking with CNN Anchor and Chief Political Correspondent Dana Bash. He said: 'I'm not even thinking about Elon. He's got a problem. The poor guy's got a problem.' The tech billionaire also claimed Trump appeared in files relating to disgraced pedophile Jeffrey Epstein in a post on his social media platform X as the pair traded blows in a sensational public row. Musk gave no evidence for the claim, which has since been deleted, and the White House dismissed the allegation.
