Sir Keir Starmer is seeking to strengthen diplomatic ties with Donald Trump’s administration by shifting the UK’s concentration to artificial intelligence on security cooperation than a “smart” emphasis on security concerns.
Technology Secretary Peter Kyle announced on Friday that the UK Institute of Security, founded only 15 months ago, would be renamed the Security Institute.
The body, which was given a 50m budget, will no longer focus on the risks associated with prejudice and freedom of speech, but on “advancing our understanding of the most serious risks posed by technology”.
At the beginning of this week, the United Kingdom joined the SH.BA at the Summit of Paris in refusing to sign a joint communication – approved by about 60 countries, including France, Germany, India and China – pledging To ensure “He is open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, safe and reliable.”
Officials said the latest movements in it were part of a wider strategy at a time when the Trump administration engages in a trade war against China and the EU. Some believe that approximation of US advantages over it can help the United Kingdom avoid targeting other areas.
At the Summit of He in Paris this week, US Vice President JD Vance warned against “excessive” arrangement and said the country would build systems free from ideological prejudices “. Meanwhile, Trump’s trustee Elon Musk said at an event in Dubai on Thursday he was worried that “if, hypothetically, he was created to think dei at all costs, may think that many men are in power and simply execute them. “
The new UK ambassador to the US Peter Mandelson said that his “signature policy” would promote cooperation between the technology sectors of the two countries to ensure that both countries could provide a “logical advantage” over China .
“It would be catastrophic if we in the West lost the advanced technology race in China and China we would get a technological drowning,” Mandelson said, adding that the “backbone” of the special relationship between the US and the UK It lies in its protection, the intelligence and security partnerships.
Britain’s decision to approach the US in it has been criticized by technology experts and civil society groups arguing that the United Kingdom is overestimating what it has to offer while isolates itself from European allies for technology regulations.
“The US is engaged in his imperialism,” said Herman Narula, the chief executive of the UK -based company impossible. “The thing that is of the greatest interest to them is access to our market. What else do we need? “
For the United Kingdom to submit an attractive proposal for the US will have to make serious concessions in what it can offer, including laxer rules about the inputs used to train the models of it and a less strict approach to GDPR, Narula said.
At the Summit of him, people informed the US decision not to sign joint communication that he did not make a clear enough distinction between the use of technology by democratic and authoritarian regimes – and showed the fact that China was a signator.
A work MP described the UK decision not to sign the statement as a “low cost way to send a clear geopolitical signal”, adding that they believed it was “exactly the right movement”.
People close to the UK decision argued that the move was highly interpreted, arguing that it was more the result of limited efforts that the French Army of the Summit made to secure the signatories.
The United Kingdom government said the statement “did not provide sufficient practical clarity for global governance, nor did it not address much more difficult questions about national security and the challenge it presents – a critical focus to the United Kingdom.”
When the Security Institute first departed last year, then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he would explore “all risks, from social damages such as prejudice and disinformation, to the most impossible, but extreme danger, such as humanity that completely loses control of him. ”
Since then, Starmer has so far banned the publication of his security bill of him pending greater clarity by the US government for its advantages, according to people informed on the issue. The law will theoretically return volunteer agreement to test before the Model Model Market with Companies including Meta, Amazon and Openai, in legally binding obligations.
Gregory C. Allen, director of the Wadhawani Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that “security is related to censoring on social media platforms because it was the security teams of some of these platforms responsible for the decision to remove Donald Trump from the main platforms. ”
Allen said he would not be surprised if SH.BA changed his name Aisi in the near future. The body has so far fought to hire staff in the background of deep political uncertainty. Last week, it turned out that the inaugural director of the Institute, Elizabeth Kelly, was standing from her role.
Jakob Mökander, director of the policy of science and technology at the Tony Blair Institute, said that AISI in the United Kingdom was “better funded in the world”, so if the US continued to cooperate with the United Kingdom, it could continue to ” There was a security institute of him, but send all her models to the UK for testing. “
Lord Peter Rickets, a former UK national security adviser and permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, expressed skepticism that pursuing cooperation in him would be a fruitful thread of diplomacy.
“The American ecosystem of it is so wide that any contribution to the UK could only make a marginal contribution and part of that would be our collection power,” he said. “If we are lined up with the US and put ourselves in violation of the EU that will surely weaken our ability to collect – and maybe we will damage the restoration (with the EU).”
Additional reporting from Chloe Cornish to Dubai
