Defining our optimal role in the global AI ecosystem
Photo by Carl Court / Getty
As Select Committee chair, I hear witness after witness reference the role of AI in everything from recruitment processes to CDP figures. Britain's role in the global AI ecosystem isn't just about growing our tech sector – already the world's third largest – but about laying the foundations of our economy for a new age.
Unlike its predecessors, this government tells a positive story about how AI could be shaped to serve the public good and boost Britain's growth as a centre for responsible AI use. I was delighted to see the Prime Minister throw the full force of government behind the AI Action Plan, pledging concrete steps to drive adoption in the public and private sectors; we need to go hard and fast to close the gap with international competitors.
Open-source AI, which I've long been committed to championing, represents the opportunity to build trust and democratise technology. The benefits are plain to see. It provides a mechanism for scrutiny, encourages international cooperation on a matter of huge general interest, allows the UK to become a diplomatic and technological bridge and stimulates entrepreneurship. Open-source initiatives could catalyse an entire generation of SMEs and start-ups.
Public sector productivity is one of the most enduring challenges in Britain, and the public directly faces the consequences. There is enormous potential for AI to improve such outcomes. I have long encouraged the parliamentary authorities to roll out secure AI tools that could save my staff time – time that could then be spent helping constituents in Newcastle. The government claims potential savings of up to £45bn through the digitisation of services.
In our NHS, there is huge scope for AI to support management and boost the productivity of hospitals and GP surgeries, saving precious time and money. In climate tech, AI is being used to optimise energy systems and improve climate modelling.The Alan Turing Institute is using AI to help understand the effects of climate change, protect communities and natural habitats and develop ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Programmes such as the High Value Manufacturing Catapult, which investigates innovative technologies and scales up new products and processes, is integrating AI for predictive maintenance, process optimisation and supply chain resilience – boosting productivity and innovation across UK industry.
The Committee has heard from local government representatives who are using digitisation to enhance performance and efficiency. Sutton Council uses sensors to monitor the routines of elderly citizens. Not getting up at the usual time may signal an emergency, and then first-responders are on the scene much faster.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Those who say AI is irrelevant to the challenges of economic growth in the public sector fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the opportunities available, its presence everywhere in our lives already, the frenetic pace of its delivery and its ability to drive growth.
We are exceptionally gifted by our access to the infrastructure and institutions needed to conduct research and take advantage of the opportunities posed in adopting AI. I was lucky enough to attend the opening of Northumbria University's Centre for Responsible AI, which aims to enhance the UK as a leader in the ethical implementation of AI.
Britain's optimal role in the global AI ecosystem must be as a hub for great tech, a magnet for great talent and a centre for ethical and responsible deployment. We must leverage our unique strengths to become a trusted, innovative and ethical leader in AI development and governance.
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
4 hours ago
- Times
Why £100,000 is the worst salary you can earn
Last week, Money reported on the plight of the Henrys — High Earners, Not Rich Yet — and how Britain's tax system leaves those earning £100,000 feeling the pinch. Anyone earning above £100,000 a year after pension contributions (their 'adjusted net income') starts to lose their tax-free personal allowance of £12,570, at a rate of £1 for every £2 of earnings. It means those earning between £100,000 and £125,140 face a marginal tax rate of 60 per cent. At the same time, parents earning £100,000-plus lose 15 hours of free childcare a week and the government's tax-free childcare scheme, worth up to £2,000 a year per child. We asked readers for their experiences of being caught in the £100,000 tax trap, and what they did to mitigate it. Here are some of your stories. 'Extra NHS shifts would cost me more than I would earn' Louise Adams*, 46, an NHS consultant from southeast England I've been an NHS consultant for about six years. My pre-tax income is about £105,000 after my NHS pension contributions. My professional memberships (I can deduct from my taxable income) cost me another £3,000, and then I pay a bit extra into a self-invested personal pension to get my adjusted income down to £99,500, to avoid that £100,000 cliff edge. There's an awful lot of us in the same position. Pretty much anyone who's been appointed as a consultant in the past five years if they have children who are not yet at school will be in the same situation. If you have more than one child, it's even worse. It's one of the significant reasons for the waiting list and out-of-hours cover problems in the NHS, as it's not financially viable to do any extra shifts. I'm a single parent with a three-year-old daughter, so all the costs and care fall on me. I get 30 hours a week free during term time for about 38 weeks a year, plus the tax-free childcare is worth another £2,000 a year. I have someone who comes in at about 6.30am and looks after her until 7pm when I get home, then she goes to nursery two and a half days a week. Outside of the free hours, childcare costs me about £17 an hour, which totals about £40,000 a year. Frankly, I'm very lucky, I've got lots of family around and my parents also make contributions towards the paid-for childcare. I would be paid £100 an hour for any extra shifts, or £125 if it were outside 7am to 7pm. But I would lose my personal allowance, I would lose free childcare hours and my tax-free childcare, and I would have to pay for childcare for my daughter when I was working. So it would cost me more money to work extra shifts than I would earn, it's bananas. During the recent strikes when I came in, it actually cost me money to help keep my department safe. There are always extra unfilled shifts, someone might be ill, or there's a clinic on evenings and weekends in a bid to reduce waiting lists. More people would do those, but it's not financially worthwhile. It's a slightly valid criticism that I shouldn't complain as much about childcare costs as I'm a single parent by choice, but it doesn't negate the fact that I would do more work and help the NHS out if the system didn't leave me worse off for doing so. 'It feels like a disincentive for people to work more' James Preston, 57, an occupational health doctor from north London James Preston said it's not worth volunteering for more work JAMES PRESTON I'm not pleading poverty. I am in a very fortunate position. I'm single with no children, so I don't have the same financial pressures of some of my friends who have children and are still recovering from things like paying school fees. But the £100,000 rule just feels like a cliff edge. The fact that the marginal rate goes up to 60 per cent and then comes down again feels unfair and arbitrary. I have no problem with being taxed proportionately if you earn more money, but there is already a system in place for that with the 20 per cent, 40 per cent and 45 per cent for the highest tax bracket. To lose the personal allowance that is given to everybody feels like you are targeting a very specific demographic. I've had a salary just below the £100,000 mark, and when I was self-employed, I worked flat out to take my earnings above £100,000. If you earn over £100,000, you do just think: 'Why am I volunteering to add work to my diary if I am going to take substantially less in pay back home with me?' I've definitely made a conscious decision in the past to not earn over £100,000 to avoid paying the marginal rate. It's a concern for me that this is a disincentive for people to work. There is a shortage of people with skills and particularly marketable skills that command a higher income. It's a disincentive for these people who have the luxury to turn down work to keep under £100,000. 'We lose about £7,000 of childcare help for our twins' Erica Jackson*, 36, from southeast London, who works for a sustainable food company We have one-year-old twins and because my salary is above £100,000, while my partner earns £70,000, we get none of the tax-free childcare benefits or the free hours from the government. My children go to a childminder, who they love, for just three days a week. Our yearly childcare bill is still £24,800, and would probably be about £18,000 if we got the free hours and other benefits. We are very fortunate, we earn well and I am really aware that there are lots of people in more difficult positions than us. But it shouldn't be one size fits all, and the £100,000 rule shouldn't be set in stone if you have two or three children going through childcare at the same time. I think it's unfair; we have friends earning £99,000 and they are much better off because they get the hours. • Why a £2,000 pay rise can cost you £12,000 It's not just the childcare costs either — with twins, everything hits at the same time. For example, you can't buy a car seat and pass it down. You have to buy two at the same time, two high chairs, two cots. We just couldn't have any more children, absolutely not — the only way we could do it would be to wait until they were in school. Because I earn £125,000 it means that I miss out on the full £12,750 personal allowance. I wasn't aware of these rules and when I was younger, I was just always pushing for a higher salary. I didn't realise it could get more difficult. We rent at the moment and pay £2,400 a month to live in southeast London. We are trying to save for a home but we are now having to dip into these savings just to get by each month. 'I can't put more money into my pension — we need every penny now' Philippa Henderson*, 39, from Hampshire I'm frequently told: 'Just put anything over £100,000 into your pension.' But the reality is my pension is in good shape, and I need every penny of my income now. I have two young children, but because I earn £130,000 a year I have lost all my childcare allowances. At the same time, we've got a mortgage that costs us £3,500 a month and my commuting is £600 a month. I'm the higher earner in my marriage, and it's annoying that if my husband and I both earned £90,000 we would pay less tax overall and still receive childcare help. I do not mind paying tax — in fact, I wouldn't want to live in a society where rich people get away with paying very little — but the £100,000 threshold is not the level of wealth it seems. We do not have a flashy lifestyle. We drive a clapped-out old car and go to Cornwall once a year. We do have a cleaner but she recently dropped her hours because her benefits have gone up so she doesn't need to work as much. Meanwhile, I'm working 50 hours a week and paying for any help I can get. I tell myself it's just a phase and it'll get easier when our children go to school, because we're going to be using a state school so at least that will be free. 'I can't see a time I'll ever choose to earn a £100,000 salary' Darren John, 57, a pension consultant from London I now pay everything over £100,000 into my pension. I can't see a time when I'll ever take any pay greater than £100,000 as a salary. Working to pay 62 per cent of my income to HMRC is nonsensical. What makes it worse is when you see the government and others suggesting it's not fair that we get higher rate tax relief on those same pension contributions, even though we feel obliged to make them. It's a vicious circle created by a ridiculous tax system. I certainly don't have any issue paying my fair share but a tax rate of nearly two thirds cannot be fair in any reasonable person's mind. As an experienced pension consultant, I'm acutely aware of how we arrived in this position through successive governments, which makes me very cynical of the whole regime. Pensions are the one workaround, and these are now coming under attack by this government, which is greatly concerning. The temptation to move abroad is becoming an increasingly realistic option.
Reuters
5 hours ago
- Reuters
Exclusive: Google, Scale AI's largest customer, plans split after Meta deal, sources say
SAN FRANCISCO, June 13 (Reuters) - Alphabet's (GOOGL.O), opens new tab Google, the largest customer of Scale AI, plans to cut ties with Scale after news broke that rival Meta (META.O), opens new tab is taking a 49% stake in the AI data-labeling startup, five sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. Google had planned to pay Scale AI about $200 million this year for the human-labeled training data that is crucial for developing technology, including the sophisticated AI models that power Gemini, its ChatGPT competitor, one of the sources said. The search giant already held conversations with several of Scale AI's rivals this week as it seeks to shift away much of that workload, sources added. Scale's loss of significant business comes as Meta takes a big stake in the company, valuing it at $29 billion. Scale was worth $14 billion before the deal. Scale AI intends to keep its business running while its CEO, Alexandr Wang, along with a few employees, move over to Meta. Since its core business is concentrated around a few customers, it could suffer greatly if it loses key customers like Google. In a statement, a Scale AI spokesperson said its business, which spans work with major companies and governments, remains strong, as it is committed to protecting customer data. The company declined to comment on specifics with Google. Scale AI raked in $870 million in revenue in 2024, and Google spent some $150 million on Scale AI's services last year, sources said. Other major tech companies that are customers of Scale's, including Microsoft (MSFT.O), opens new tab, are also backing away. Elon Musk's xAI is also looking to exit, one of the sources said. OpenAI decided to pull back from Scale several months ago, according to sources familiar with the matter, though it spends far less money than Google. OpenAI's CFO said on Friday that the company will continue to work with Scale AI, as one of its many data vendors. Companies that compete with Meta in developing cutting-edge AI models are concerned that doing business with Scale could expose their research priorities and road map to a rival, five sources said. By contracting with Scale AI, customers often share proprietary data as well as prototype products for which Scale's workers are providing data-labeling services. With Meta now taking a 49% stake, AI companies are concerned that one of their chief rivals could gain knowledge about their business strategy and technical blueprints. Google, Microsoft and OpenAI declined to comment. xAI did not respond to a request for comment. The bulk of Scale AI's revenue comes from charging generative AI model makers for providing access to a network of human trainers with specialized knowledge - from historians to scientists, some with doctorate degrees. The humans annotate complex datasets that are used to "post-train" AI models, and as AI models have become smarter, the demand for the sophisticated human-provided examples has surged, and one annotation could cost as much as $100. Scale also does data-labeling for enterprises like self-driving car companies and the U.S. government, which are likely to stay, according to the sources. But its biggest money-maker is in partnering with generative AI model makers, the sources said. Google had already sought to diversify its data service providers for more than a year, three of the sources said. But Meta's moves this week have led Google to seek to move off Scale AI on all its key contracts, the sources added. Because of the way data-labeling contracts are structured, that process could happen quickly, two sources said. This will provide an opening for Scale AI's rivals to jump in. "The Meta-Scale deal marks a turning point," said Jonathan Siddharth, CEO of Turing, a Scale AI competitor. "Leading AI labs are realizing neutrality is no longer optional, it's essential." Labelbox, another competitor, will "probably generate hundreds of millions of new revenue" by the end of the year from customers fleeing Scale, its CEO, Manu Sharma, told Reuters. Handshake, a competitor focusing on building a network of PhDs and experts, saw a surge of workload from top AI labs that compete with Meta. "Our demand has tripled overnight after the news," said Garrett Lord, CEO at Handshake. Many AI labs now want to hire in-house data-labelers, which allows their data to remain secure, said Brendan Foody, CEO of Mercor, a startup that in addition to competing directly with Scale AI also builds technology around being able to recruit and vet candidates in an automated way, enabling AI labs to scale up their data labeling operations quickly. Founded in 2016, Scale AI provides vast amounts of labeled data or curated training data, which is crucial for developing sophisticated tools such as OpenAI's ChatGPT. The Meta deal will be a boon for Scale AI's investors including Accel and Index Ventures, as well as its current and former employees. As part of the deal, Scale AI's CEO, Wang, will take a top position leading Meta's AI efforts. Meta is fighting the perception that it may have fallen behind in the AI race after its initial set of Llama 4 large language models released in April fell short of performance expectations.
Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Daily Mail
AstraZeneca in deal with China firm worth up to £4bn
AstraZeneca has agreed a deal that could be worth almost £4billion with a Chinese company to use AI in the production of new treatments for chronic diseases. Britain's largest listed company announced the tie-up with biotech firm CSPC Pharmaceuticals following controversy over its involvement in China. The pharmaceuticals giant will pay CSPC an upfront fee of £81m while a total further payment of up to £3.8billion is available if the drugs reach development and sales-related milestones. AstraZeneca has been ploughing cash into the country, including announcing a £1.8billion research and development hub in the capital Beijing. The firm's former boss in China, Leon Wang, was arrested in October and is still thought to be in detention. More recently, former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith has accused the pharma giant of 'turning a blind eye to the nature of the Chinese government'. AstraZeneca boss Sir Pascal Soriot said in February: 'We all think about Leon and miss him, but the reality is we are not able to talk to him. We are not allowed.'
