Latest news with #UKAI
The Guardian
14-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Minister accused of being too close to big tech after analysis of meetings
A senior cabinet minister has been accused of being too close to big tech after analysis showed a surge in his department's meetings with companies such as Google, Amazon, Apple and Meta since Labour came to power. According to a Guardian analysis of publicly available data, Peter Kyle met people close to or representing the sector 28 times in a six-month period. That's more than one meeting every week on average, and nearly 70% more often than his predecessor as science and technology secretary, Michelle Donelan. The findings have brought renewed criticism from those who believe he has used his position to push the sector's agenda even in the face of concerns about online safety and protections for the creative industries. UKAI, a trade body representing the UK's artificial intelligence industry, said smaller players were being squeezed out as a consequence of the government's focus on big tech. 'Our concern is that there is a huge imbalance between a handful of global players who are able to influence directly what No 10 is thinking about on policy, and the thousands of other businesses that make up the AI industry across the UK,' said Tim Flagg, the UKAI chief executive. 'Our voice is not being heard, but the economic growth that the government seeks will come from these companies.' Labour has put the technology sector at the heart of much of what it is promising to do in government. Keir Starmer said in a speech earlier this year that artificial intelligence could 'turbocharge growth', and the prime minister is now pursuing a tech-focused trade deal with the US, having last week agreed a range of tariff reductions. Kyle has been at the centre of the government's outreach to the sector, calling those who work in it 'the bold people building a new future for Britain'. Some in the creative sector blame Kyle for piloting controversial proposals to allow AI companies to circumvent copyright protections and use creative material to train their tools. The Guardian revealed last month that ministers have drawn up concessions to those plans after a backlash from some of the UK's best-known artists, including Elton John and Paul McCartney. On Wednesday ministers sought to block a Lords amendment to the data bill that would have required AI companies to disclose their use of copyright-protected content. Some in Labour circles now believe the technology secretary has become so close to the industry he is supposed to monitor that he will be moved in the next reshuffle, possibly to replace Bridget Phillipson as education secretary. Victoria Collins, the Liberal Democrat science and technology spokesperson, said: 'Peter Kyle has rightly got a reputation for being too close to big tech – unable to defy his friends at Meta and X when it comes to standing up for our kids' online safety or the rights of British creatives. 'Kyle rubbing shoulders with so many big US tech bros, instead of our great UK startups trying to get their foot in the door, shows he's missing a trick.' Caroline Dinenage, the Conservative chair of the culture, media and sport select committee, said: 'It's great that [Kyle] is taking a keen interest in the growth of this sector. But he needs to ensure he's hearing balanced voices from across the high-performance business sectors the UK economy depends upon, to avoid irrevocable unintended consequences of advancing at the expense of others.' A spokesperson for the science and technology department said: 'As the department for technology, we make no apologies for regularly engaging with the sector – one that employs nearly 2 million people in the UK. Regular engagement with technology companies of all sizes is fundamental to delivering economic growth and transforming our public services.' Information published by the government shows that from July 2024 until December 2024 – the most recent period for which there is data – Kyle held meetings with people representing or advocating for technology companies 28 times. Google, Amazon and Microsoft were present at five of those meetings, the data shows, while Meta attended four. Five of Kyle's meetings, all in early August, were to discuss online disinformation and how it had contributed to the spread of violence during that summer's riots. But apart from that, almost every single one was to discuss 'investment', 'opportunities', or both. Last August Kyle met all four of those companies, including others from the industry, to discuss AI regulation. This year, he has met AI companies several times, according to documents obtained under freedom of information rules by the website Those meetings include three with the US AI company Anthropic, as well as a two-day flurry of meetings in February during which he saw executives from OpenAI, the chip designer Arm, Google DeepMind, ElevenLabs and Synthesia. Many of those meetings were also attended by Matt Clifford, the prime minister's adviser on AI, who has also been criticised for carrying out his role while also holding shares in dozens of AI companies. Earlier this year the Guardian revealed the government was delaying its plans to regulate the AI sector. Last September, Kyle met Tony Blair in a meeting designed to 'discuss [his department's] priorities'. However, information obtained by Politico last week under freedom of information laws shows Blair used that meeting to suggest Kyle meet the Ellison Institute of Technology, which is funded by Larry Ellison, the billionaire tech mogul who also funds the Tony Blair Institute. Kyle was also involved in watering down proposals from a Labour backbencher to ban addictive smartphone algorithms aimed at young teenagers.
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Labour is allowing the plunder of our creativity
The support for my amendments passed in the House of Lords to protect copyright material from the predations of AI developers has been overwhelming. It came not only from the big names of the creative sector – Elton John, Paul McCartney, Dua Lipa, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Tom Stoppard, Jeanette Winterson, Barbara Broccoli, Eric Fellner, Pippa Harris and Sir Simon Rattle to state just a few – but also UK AI, Universal, Sony, Warner Music, and a consortium of luxury businesses including iconic car manufacturers, fashion brands, and many luxury hotels and shops that are global ambassadors for the UK – contributing over £81 billion a year to the economy. The support comes from across arts and business because this is not simply an economic issue but a defining one for our British identity. The Government is proposing to allow AI companies based anywhere in the world (read the US and China) free use of all copyrighted material by default, without permission. It is theft by any other name, but it also means that every future piece of creative work is free game for the companies unless the owner has opted out. Opting out is both technically unfeasible and puts the burden on the victim not the perpetrator. This issue has united politicians across the party divide. As a Conservative peer responding to my thanks for his support simply said, 'How kind of you to write. Conservatives believe in property rights.' He's right, the Government is – against the will of their rightful owners – transferring property rights from the UK to the behemoths of Silicon Valley and Hangzhou. AI needs three things to work: skills, energy and data. In the UK we punch above our weight in skills, though we are no match for the US or China; we are crippled by our expensive energy and so for the foreseeable future processing itself will largely take place elsewhere. But when it comes to data, we are king. The great collections in our libraries and museums, our publicly held data – whether NHS, geospatial or education – and our creative industries, from performing and visual arts, to music and media in all its forms, they all are reservoirs of a wealth of extremely valuable data. This data will become ever more valuable as the world becomes more dominated by AI-derived content. This is why, British luxury businesses have voiced their concerns that decades of investments in their brands is being eroded by the Government's plans. It is why rival newspapers in an unprecedented truce wrapped themselves in the 'make it fair' slogan. This expressed their collective concern that inaccurate and biased AI news is stealing traffic from branded and editorially derived journalism. It is why more than 70 creative professional organisations spanning illustration, photography, music, theatre, film and product design, have written to the Government asking for a change in policy to protect UK growth. The creative industries do more than contribute £126 billion and create a network of 2.4 million jobs. They tell our national story – which results in the UK's phenomenal soft power, inward investment and tourism. As more people question the role of the UK in a changing world, this Government policy is wittingly giving way to the US tech companies. These are the same tech companies that don't want to pay the Digital Services Tax, that want to water down our child safety laws. They are the same companies that routinely – indeed deliberately – distribute the angry, the partisan, the ugly and the incorrect in the war for our attention. Allowing them to be the purveyors of culture risks devastating economic consequences for the creative sector and the country as a whole. The Government's measure strips away the income stream and the ownership of meticulously generated content. But it is not just a financial question. This content reflects what it is to be and feel human, it tells the story of our four nations, and brings us all joy. The policy is madness indeed. On May 7, the Government will push their Bill through the Commons without my amendments, putting in their place empty promises of impact assessments and technical reviews that will take years to complete and leave the AI companies to continue to steal in plain sight. It is not just that a citizen's right to sell, rent or hold the fruits of their labour should be given by Government to Silicon Valley or Hangzhou. On May 12 I will relay my amendments in the Lords. I hope colleagues from all sides, will join me in the lobby to protect our heritage, preserve our world-class creative industries and keep British culture, and the huge financial rewards it generates, British. Baroness Kidron is a crossbench member of the House of Lords Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
01-05-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Labour is allowing the plunder of our creativity
The support for my amendments passed in the House of Lords to protect copyright material from the predations of AI developers has been overwhelming. It came not only from the big names of the creative sector – Elton John, Paul McCartney, Dua Lipa, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Tom Stoppard, Jeanette Winterson, Barbara Broccoli, Eric Fellner, Pippa Harris and Sir Simon Rattle to state just a few – but also UK AI, Universal, Sony, Warner Music, and a consortium of luxury businesses including iconic car manufacturers, fashion brands, and many luxury hotels and shops that are global ambassadors for the UK – contributing over £81 billion a year to the economy, in addition to the £126 billion of the creative industries. The support comes from across arts and business because this is not simply an economic issue but a defining one for our British identity. The Government is proposing to allow AI companies based anywhere in the world (read the US and China) use of all copyrighted material by default, without permission. It is theft by any other name, but it also means that every future piece of creative work is free game for the companies unless the owner has opted out. Opting out is both technically unfeasible and puts the burden on the victim not the perpetrator. This issue has united politicians across the party divide. As a Conservative peer responding to my thanks for his support simply said, 'How kind of you to write. Conservatives believe in property rights.' He's right, the Government is – against the will of their rightful owners – transferring property rights from the UK to the behemoths of Silicon Valley and Hangzhou. AI needs three things to work: skills, energy and data. In the UK we punch above our weight in skills, though we are no match for the US or China; we are crippled by our expensive energy and so for the foreseeable future processing itself will largely take place elsewhere. But when it comes to data, we are king. The great collections in our libraries and museums, our publicly held data – whether NHS, geospatial or education – and our creative industries, from performing and visual arts, to music and media in all its forms, they all are reservoirs of a wealth of extremely valuable data. This data will become ever more valuable as the world becomes more dominated by AI-derived content. This is why, British luxury businesses have voiced their concerns that decades of investments in their brands is being eroded by the Government's plans. It is why rival newspapers in an unprecedented truce wrapped themselves in the 'make it fair' slogan. This expressed their collective concern that inaccurate and biased AI news is stealing traffic from branded and editorially derived journalism. It is why more than 70 creative professional organisations spanning illustration, photography, music, theatre, film and product design, have written to the Government asking for a change in policy to protect UK growth. The creative industries do more than contribute to the nation's wealth and create a network of 2.4 million jobs. They tell our national story – which results in the UK's phenomenal soft power, inward investment and tourism. As more people question the role of the UK in a changing world, this Government policy is wittingly giving way to the US tech companies. These are the same tech companies that don't want to pay the Digital Services Tax, that want to water down our child safety laws. They are the same companies that routinely – indeed deliberately – distribute the angry, the partisan, the ugly and the incorrect in the war for our attention. Allowing them to be the arbiters of our culture risks devastating economic consequences for the creative sector and the country as a whole. The Government's measure strips away the income stream and the ownership of meticulously generated content. But it is not just a financial question. This content reflects what it is to be and feel human, it tells the story of our four nations, and brings us all joy. The policy is madness indeed. On May 7, the Government will push their Bill through the Commons without my amendments, putting in their place empty promises of impact assessments and technical reviews that will take years to complete and leave the AI companies to continue to steal in plain sight. It is a citizen's right to sell, rent or hold the fruits of their labour and it must not be given by Government to Silicon Valley or Hangzhou. On May 12 I will relay my amendments in the Lords. I hope colleagues from all sides, will join me in the lobby to protect our heritage, preserve our world-class creative industries and keep British culture, and the huge financial rewards it generates, British.
Telegraph
14-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
Labour is using scare stories to attack British creativity
This year's Brit awards weren't just about chart-topping hits or show-stopping outfits. They were a stage for the music industry's loudest demand yet: Make It Fair. Over the past few weeks, the Government's plans to overhaul copyright law have rightly provoked a huge outcry from some of our most important sectors. The proposals would allow tech companies to hoover up content without permission in order to train their AI models – and could be catastrophic for our country's creative sector. Music, film, publishing, visual arts – some of Britain's most dynamic and successful industries have come together as part of the Make It Fair campaign to set out their stark opposition to this policy. Most extraordinarily, even British AI companies have come out against it. UKAI, the trade body representing British AI businesses, has said: 'The opt-out model would significantly harm the creative sectors to achieve a minimal gain for a handful of global tech companies.' In short, the Government is proposing a policy that would devastate the British creative industries – but not actually benefit the UK AI sector. It's a lose-lose policy with the only winners being global AI companies who want to hoover up artists' work for free and churn out machine-made imitations on an industrial scale. Britain's creative and technological sectors are natural allies that should be working with, not against, each other. For years, the UK has had a robust copyright and intellectual property (IP) framework that has driven just such partnerships and commercial collaborations. Yet ministers are now trying to upend that framework in a way that threatens to disrupt a system that is already working. Across the world, leading AI developers and content creators are proving that fair licencing agreements and partnerships can work. Sony Music partnered with rock legend David Gilmour to unlock new ways for fans to reimagine audio and cover art using AI, and supported AI-startup Vermillio in helping artists protect and profit from their work. Universal Music Group has brokered a deal with YouTube to develop AI-driven tools while ensuring that artists retain control over their work, while Warner Music developed the first animated biopic of an artist, legendary French singer Edith Piaf, using AI. Meanwhile, The Guardian announced a strategic partnership with OpenAI and Shutterstock as well as signing multiple agreements with OpenAI, Meta and Google to ensure its contributors are compensated for AI-generated uses of their work. So if the private sector is already negotiating agreements, why is the Government insisting on stepping in to 'fix' a system that isn't broken – and driving apart our creative industries and AI sector in the process? If ministers have proof that our current system is failing, let's see it. Because so far, all we've heard is scare stories and speculation. Worse still, these new laws would put the UK out of step with other leading economies, where AI firms and content creators are finding practical solutions rather than being tied up in regulatory red tape. The AI revolution is moving fast. If the Government genuinely wants to support British creatives and AI pioneers, it should provide certainty – not force unnecessary lose-lose restrictions on the sectors that will be driving growth in the future.
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Labour is using scare stories to attack British creativity
This year's Brit awards weren't just about chart-topping hits or show-stopping outfits. They were a stage for the music industry's loudest demand yet: Make It Fair. Over the past few weeks, the Government's plans to overhaul copyright law have rightly provoked a huge outcry from some of our most important sectors. The proposals would allow tech companies to hoover up content without permission in order to train their AI models – and could be catastrophic for our country's creative sector. Music, film, publishing, visual arts – some of Britain's most dynamic and successful industries have come together as part of the Make It Fair campaign to set out their stark opposition to this policy. Most extraordinarily, even British AI companies have come out against it. UKAI, the trade body representing British AI businesses, has said: 'The opt-out model would significantly harm the creative sectors to achieve a minimal gain for a handful of global tech companies.' In short, the Government is proposing a policy that would devastate the British creative industries – but not actually benefit the UK AI sector. It's a lose-lose policy with the only winners being global AI companies who want to hoover up artists' work for free and churn out machine-made imitations on an industrial scale. Britain's creative and technological sectors are natural allies that should be working with, not against, each other. For years, the UK has had a robust copyright and intellectual property (IP) framework that has driven just such partnerships and commercial collaborations. Yet ministers are now trying to upend that framework in a way that threatens to disrupt a system that is already working. Across the world, leading AI developers and content creators are proving that fair licencing agreements and partnerships can work. Sony Music partnered with rock legend David Gilmour to unlock new ways for fans to reimagine audio and cover art using AI, and supported AI-startup Vermillio in helping artists protect and profit from their work. Universal Music Group has brokered a deal with YouTube to develop AI-driven tools while ensuring that artists retain control over their work, while Warner Music developed the first animated biopic of an artist, legendary French singer Edith Piaf, using AI. Meanwhile, The Guardian announced a strategic partnership with OpenAI and Shutterstock as well as signing multiple agreements with OpenAI, Meta and Google to ensure its contributors are compensated for AI-generated uses of their work. So if the private sector is already negotiating agreements, why is the Government insisting on stepping in to 'fix' a system that isn't broken – and driving apart our creative industries and AI sector in the process? If ministers have proof that our current system is failing, let's see it. Because so far, all we've heard is scare stories and speculation. Worse still, these new laws would put the UK out of step with other leading economies, where AI firms and content creators are finding practical solutions rather than being tied up in regulatory red tape. The AI revolution is moving fast. If the Government genuinely wants to support British creatives and AI pioneers, it should provide certainty – not force unnecessary lose-lose restrictions on the sectors that will be driving growth in the future. Jamie Njoku-Goodwin is former director of strategy to prime minister Rishi Sunak and former chief executive of UK Music Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
