A heavy-handed CMA is standing in the way of Britain being a leader in AI
As a lifelong follower of computer science, it is interesting to see that the forthcoming AI Safety Summit will be held at Bletchley Park. Its role in Enigma code-breaking which turned the course of World War Two is well-known and it has since become synonymous with our country’s contribution to data science and AI. Although critics might argue the choice of Bletchley Park harks back to an era that is long gone, it remains a fitting staging post for the Sunak Government’s global AI ambitions.
While Sunak has displaced his pro-tech credentials in recent weeks in the interest of garnering favour from an economically fatigued electorate, it is hard to think that his previous stance is not genuine. Particularly as Sunak has been very vocal about the opportunity created by the forthcoming summit and the central place of UK data science firms in this field, it is evident that he understands the opportunity that the nation has to achieve large-scale growth in AI and computer science.
It is an industry that already employs more than 50,000 people in the UK and there is significant headroom in this to move closer to the likes of the US, which dominates the space in commercial terms. With investments of £100m in AI safety research (Foundation Model Task Force) as well as into its applications in Healthcare, the summit is one symptom of the Government’s broader commitment to AI as a lever of national growth through job creation.
This is alongside global prestige, with the appointment of Matt Clifford and Jonathan Black as co-leaders of the AI Summit a clear indicator that the summit will bring a truly international and diverse group of academics, politicians, and technology practitioners together. Meanwhile, both Sunak and James Cleverly have publicly stated that any future legislation that governs AI safety must be global in nature if it is to be effective.
Indeed, with many commentators saying that the EU will take a tougher stance on regulation, it is possible that a post-Brexit Britain can play an even larger role in designing a global standard, and it is perhaps imperative that it does so if the country is to continue to be seen as a serious contributor to the advancement of AI and a balanced set of controls.
Nevertheless, a significant stumbling block remains in the way of the Government’s ambitions here, in the shape of the Competitions and Market Authority (CMA). Having recently released its report following its review of AI Foundation Models and their impact on competition and consumer protection, the CMA warned of the pitfalls of AI and the concentration of control in a few tech giants. This creates a clear level of tension between the Sunak government’s attempt to bolster our data science industry and the remit of the CMA.
While politicians of course must balance the need for innovation and growth in business with an imperative to prevent anti-competitive behaviour that might in the long-run damage consumer choice or lead to higher prices as a result of a lack of competition, in this case Sunak’s government must be heavy-handed with the CMA. The level of aggression the CMA has applied to recent deals, such as blocking the acquisition of Sika AG by Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s INEOS, and the somewhat short-term nature of its decision-making are real issues for the vision of world-leading, pro-AI Britain.
It is imperative that the CMA is able to maintain a level of scrutiny that provides safety for businesses and the wider electorate as AI continues to influence every industry. However, the current and future Governments must force the CMA to do this without constraining innovation to such an extent that the UK becomes a trivial player in the field.