British Prime Minister Keir Starmer wants the UK to be a trailblazer for artificial intelligence (AI). This makes sense in theory for a place that gave the world computing icons like Alan Turing, Ada Lovelace and Tim Berners-Lee — but a lot of his plan does not.
One of the UK’s greatest strengths is its role as a fast, thoughtful regulator on technology, often striking a sensible middle ground between the US’ regulatory vacuum and the EU’s stifling bureaucracy. Starmer says the UK should be more than that, touting AI this week as a springboard for growth that could lift the UK’s productivity by 1.5 percent and add ￡47 billion (US$57.4 billion) to the economy. However, the lengthy plans he sketched out for that number are vague and do not account for the fact that financial benefits of tech revolutions often take years to manifest. An intervention of this kind, which would cost ￡14 billion, also looks unwise as the UK faces serious public spending pressures.
Take the government’s move to follow an entire 50-point action plan that was drawn up by UK venture capitalist Matt Clifford. As everyone knows, the longer your to-do list (and 50 is a lot) the less likely you would get to everything. The probability decreases when those plans lack features such as timelines or metrics for success.
One action point, for instance, is to create a “UK Sovereign AI Unit” to invest in AI companies, but it lacks details on a budget, investment criteria or roughly when it might be set up. There is also no timeline for the establishment of “AI growth zones.” A pledge on mandatory AI adoption across government departments also lacked targets, timelines or how the success of their initiatives would be measured.
One good feature of the AI plan is to expand the UK’s compute capacity 20-fold by the year 2030. Starmer, not surprisingly, hyped that increase a little too much.
“That’s like upgrading from my dad’s old Ford Cortina to a Formula 1 McLaren in one,” he said in a speech on Monday.
Not really. A more accurate analogy might be upscaling to a Nissan Qashqai. The proposal to increase the UK’s ownership of graphics processing units (GPUs) for AI training to 100,000 is a fraction of what the largest technology companies are hoarding. That is still a noble and important attempt at countering the imbalance of computing power Big Tech holds now. They have a stranglehold on academia because computer science academics need access to vast amounts of GPUs for cutting-edge studies. That has incentivized many people to conduct research in the interests of tech firms (figuring out how to make systems bigger, for instance, instead of safer or fairer).
However, the UK has not provided technical specifications on the GPUs it is acquiring. Are they gold-standard Nvidia H100s or a cheaper, slower variant? Nor has it given a budget for the new supercomputer it plans to build. Strangely, soon after Starmer took power in summer last year, he shut down a planned ￡800 million supercomputer being built at Edinburgh University as part of an initial raft of spending cuts. It would have made more sense to keep that project.
Starmer’s U-turn suggests an erratic, hype-fueled approach to AI that involves throwing lots of spaghetti on a wall and praying it all sticks. Perhaps he was charmed by Clifford, the venture capitalist who designed the ambitious plan, described in a 2023 Politico profile as good at “winning over” politicians.
A better approach would have been to focus on a few key objectives, such as the growth of computing power, or to mandate use of AI in government divisions, and provide greater specificity. Starmer would also do well to play up the UK’s leading role as a safety regulator, which benefits from the concentrated AI expertise in London, where Google DeepMind is based. Some 150 people work for the government’s leading AI Safety Institute, more than those working on these issues at the European Commission in Brussels.
In his speech, Starmer said AI safety should not be the “limit of what the state should do.” Yet his interventionist plans go too far the other way. He can enjoy a public-relations win for now, but he would pay the price when UK universities, start-ups and tech firms begin to seek more policy specifics.
Parmy Olson is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. A former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, she is author of Supremacy: AI, ChatGPT and the Race That Will Change the World. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
RSS