As the US snubs Paris summit, how can we keep AI under control?
The US and UK have refused to sign a declaration on AI safety at the Paris Summit. Is there a ‘third way’ for regulation, asks Russ Shaw in today’s Notebook
Is a ‘third way’ on AI regulation possible?
Discussions have concluded at the two-day AI Action Summit in Paris, which sought to be a landmark moment for global governance efforts.
The geopolitical backdrop to the talks felt more polarised than ever. On the one hand, the EU has doubled down on consumer protection across all sectors in recent times – most notably with the passage of the AI Act last year, which implemented a risk-based approach to AI regulation and established a finite list of limits for its development.
On the other hand, it’s clear that the new administration in the US is committed to a programme of de-regulation for the AI sector. Look no further than President Trump’s decision to revoke Joe Biden’s executive order on AI safety for evidence that the US has set sail on a regulatory journey significantly at odds with the landscape in Europe.
And although it was encouraging to see Vice President JD Vance and Vice Premier Zhang Guoqing in Paris this week, ultimately the US (along with the UK) refused to sign a declaration to ensure that the technology is “safe, secure and trustworthy”.
While not surprising, this was nonetheless a disappointing outcome. Ultimately, AI is not an issue which any single nation or bloc can regulate alone. The very nature of AI is inherently cross-border – its impacts and potential risks, like data privacy breaches or algorithmic bias, can be felt across different countries. Like climate change, AI regulation is a global challenge which requires a coordinated, international approach to ensure standards are upheld and applied consistently.
With the EU and the US heading in different directions, it poses the question: is a ‘third way’ possible for AI regulation? A middle ground which bridges national boundaries and political differences?
The need for such a ‘third way’ was brought sharply into focus by the recent emergence of Chinese-owned Deepseek. With its open-source approach, Deepseek has the potential to be used by policymakers to ensure that AI development continues unabated, accelerating the need for a global regulatory framework.
Clearly, the international challenge is to agree on a ‘third way’ approach to AI which balances regulation without stifling innovation or growth.
Such an approach, which marries these two seemingly opposing forces, is not beyond the realms of possibility. A good example and potential model is the UK Financial Conduct Authority’s ‘Sandbox’ approach, which is designed to help innovative firms launch new products and services while at the same time supporting economic growth. –
The approach offers a controlled environment for businesses to test new products and services without facing the full regulatory consequences, identifying safeguards to protect consumers and build them into development. It’s a case study on how safeguards on technology can be implemented without compromising innovation.
As the dust settles on the Paris Summit and attention turns to agreement on an international AI framework, policymakers could do a lot worse than look to the Sandbox as an example of best practice for implementing robust regulation while also supporting growth.
Progress on skills
Aside from AI regulation, one of the biggest issues facing the UK tech sector is a worsening skills crisis.
Recent data from the House of Commons Library highlights the scale of the challenge – 7.5m British adults lack essential digital skills, costing the economy £63bn annually.
And while the new Labour government has emphasised its commitment to improving the economy, there has been worryingly little by way of strategy to reskill and upskill the workforce with training in the technologies of tomorrow’s economy capable of boosting the UK’s anemic growth figures.
The Industrial Strategy set for April might change this. But in the absence of extensive government funding for now, there is a responsibility on the private sector – particularly Big Tech and other companies whose growth depends on skilled digital workers – to invest in upskilling programmes and expand apprenticeship opportunities.
As a nation, our collective gift to the next generation must be to prepare a workforce which is ready to seize the opportunities offered by the advent of AI and the green agenda.
Tech’s masculinity crisis
It was somewhat amusing last month to hear Mark Zuckerberg call for more ‘masculine energy’ at work – as if a lack of this is what has been holding growth in the tech sector back.
In the throes of a skills crisis in an industry where 81 per cent of C-suite roles are held by men, what’s not needed is more of the same.
With many tech companies moth-balling DEI initiatives since Trump’s re-election, it’s more important than ever to reiterate calls for companies to invest in skills bootcamps and recruitment drives which target underrepresented groups to fill the glaring gaps in our workforce.
And rather than more ‘masculine energy’, how about more feminine energy across the tech sector to drive creativity, better products and services, and more transparent management styles? Perhaps one for Mr Zuckerberg to consider during his next jiu-jitsu session.
What I’m watching: State of Happiness
My wife and I have just finished watching ‘State of Happiness’ on BBC Four – a brilliant drama following the development of the Norwegian oil industry from the late 60s, and how by the 80s it had enabled the creation of the country’s Sovereign Wealth Fund.
As Norway builds towards a more prosperous future, there are significant barriers to overcome – among them, a terrible disaster at the ‘Kielland’ drilling rig, and main characters struggling with drug addiction.
As the UK government presses ahead with its growth agenda for 2025, I thought the programme provided a timely reminder that the road to success is not always paved with gold.
Russ Shaw is the founder of Tech London Advocates & Global Tech Advocates