Large Language Models and Generative AI (Communications and Digital Committee Report)

“research on … AI safety ... to facilitate the provision of the best science available for policy making and the public good”.

That sounds a good and noble aim, although the presence of China on the list of signatories caused me to ponder just what might emerge from this laudable pledge. If the Minister is in a position to update the House on what the results have been so far, I think we would all be grateful. The Bletchley delegates planned to meet again in 2024, so perhaps he could tell us what came out of that meeting, if it ever happened.

Our report made a sheaf of recommendations to government. The two most important, perhaps, might be summed up as follows. First, do not waste time: there is no time to waste; this is happening now and at breakneck speed. Secondly, avoid regulatory capture, but regulate proportionately, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said.

We were also concerned about the need to protect copyright. This is a creative country in which many individuals and businesses earn their living through words and ideas. They cannot afford to have them stolen, and AI is already doing that at scale. The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, made this case admirably, and others will no doubt address this topic, but the need for government clarity on copyright remains pressing.

I return to those exaflops. In the remainder of my speech, I will concentrate on two specific issues in our report: the lack of compute power and whether the Government should explore the possibility of a sovereign LLM capability. The technology we are discussing today consumes computer power on an unprecedented scale. The largest AI models use many exaflops of compute: many quintillions of computer power. That also requires a huge amount of energy, but that is an issue for another debate.

In his 2023 review of compute in the UK, Professor Zoubin Ghahramani concluded that:

“The UK has great talent in AI with a vibrant start-up ecosystem, but public investment in AI compute is seriously lagging”.

He made that point in evidence to the committee. He recommended in 2023 a national co-ordinating body to deliver the vision for compute, one that could provide long-term stability while adapting to the rapid pace of change. He called for immediate investment so that the UK did not fall behind its peers.

To me, the exascale computer project in Edinburgh sounded like just the thing—50 times more powerful than existing AI resource—but this Government have pulled the plug on that. We all know about the £22 billion black hole, but, without uttering that phrase, can the Minister tell us whether he thinks that that decision might not be the end of the story? After all, the new fiscal rules allow the Chancellor to borrow to invest in important infrastructure projects. Would compute come into that category?

Secondly, will he say whether there might be some fresh thinking on the idea of a sovereign LLM? The previous Government’s response to our recommendation on this was that it was too early because LLM tools were still evolving, but the dominance of just a few overseas companies puts the UK in the potentially uncomfortable position of having to rely on core data from elsewhere for government to provide essential services. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, said, perhaps the UK must accept that it missed the boat on LLMs and concentrate on what it is already doing very successfully: building specialist AI models. For government, that poses particular risks. Might there be some middle way that government should be—and maybe is—examining?

This was directed at the previous Government but applies equally to the present one.

Another matter of concern to the committee are the powers and abilities of regulators to ensure the safety and innovation of these LLMs. The new Labour Government clearly recognise the importance of the AI sector as a key part of their industrial strategy and I welcome the announcement of the AI action plan, which is expected to be published this month. Can my noble friend confirm that this is still the expected timescale, and when the AI opportunities unit will be set up in DSIT to implement the plan?

More details of how AI will enhance growth and productivity and support the Government’s five stated missions, including breaking down barriers to opportunity, would be welcome to better understand how AI will transform citizens’ experiences of interacting with the state and boost take-up in all parts of the public sector and the wider economy. But, before this is possible, regulatory structures to ensure responsible innovation need to be strengthened, as our report found that regulators’ staffing suggested significant variation in technical expertise. There is a pressing need for support from the Government’s central functions in providing cross-regulator co-ordination. Relying on existing regulators to ensure good outcomes from AI will work only if they are properly resourced and empowered. As our report said:

“The Government should introduce standardised powers for the main regulators who are expected to lead on AI oversight to ensure they can gather information relating to AI processes and conduct technical, empirical and governance audits. It should also ensure there are meaningful sanctions to provide credible deterrents against egregious wrongdoing”.

Can my noble friend clarify how the new Bill will support growth and innovation by ending current regulatory uncertainty for AI developers, strengthening public trust and boosting business confidence? Is this part of the new regulatory innovation office’s role?

I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment that the promised legislation will focus on the most advanced LLM models and not seek to regulate the entire industry, but rather make existing agreements between technology companies and the Government legally binding and turn the AI Safety Institute from a directorate of DSIT into an arm’s-length body, which he has said

“will give it a level of independence and a long-term future, because safety is so important”.

In conclusion, how confident is my noble friend that the recommendations of his March 2023 review will be implemented? It recognised that:

“Regulator behaviour and culture is a major determinant of whether innovators can effectively navigate adapting regulatory frameworks … the challenge for government is to keep pace with the speed of technological change: unlocking the enormous benefits of digital technologies, while minimising the risks they present both now and in the future”.

I wish the new Government well in this daunting task. As our report said:

“Capturing the benefits will require addressing risks. Many are formidable, including credible threats to public safety, societal values, open market competition and UK economic competitiveness. Farsighted, nuanced and speedy action is therefore needed to catalyse innovation responsibly and mitigate risks proportionately”.

Mitigation is essential, and I welcome the Government’s announcement of research grants to commence the important work of

“boosting society’s resilience against AI risks such as deepfakes, misinformation and cyberattacks”,

and

“the threat of AI systems failing unexpectedly, for example in the financial sector”.

Our report outlined the wide-ranging nature of these risks:

“The most immediate security concerns from LLMs come from making existing malicious activities easier, rather than qualitatively new risks. The Government should work with industry at pace to scale existing mitigations in the areas of cyber security (including systems vulnerable to voice cloning), child sexual abuse material, counter-terror, and counter-disinformation”.

I trust that the new AI strategy can be truly effective in countering risk and encouraging developments of real benefit to society.

That is putting it very mildly.

However, this is not my main concern about the risks presented by AI, and I speak as one who had slight interaction with embryonic AI in the 1980s. The risks I have mentioned so far arise out of the probable misuse of this technology, either deliberately or accidentally. They might be mitigated by tight international regulation, although how we can prevent bad actors operating in regions devoid of regulation, I do not know. These enterprises are so competitive, so globalized and so driven by commercial pressure that anything that can be done, will be done, somewhere.

My main concern, and one to which I cannot see an obvious answer, is not what happens when the technology is misused. What worries me is the risk to humans if we lose control of the AI technology itself. The report does mention this risk, saying:

“This might occur because humans gradually hand over control to highly capable systems that vastly exceed our understanding; and/or the AI system pursues goals which are not aligned with human welfare and reduce human agency”.

That is a very polite way of saying that the AI systems might acquire greater intelligence than humans and pursue goals of their own: goals that are decidedly detrimental to the human race, such as eliminating or enslaving it. Before any noble Lords conclude that I am off with the fairies, I direct them to paragraph 154 of the report, which indicates a “non-zero likelihood”—that apparently means a remote chance—of existential risks materialising, but not, the report says, in the next three years. That is not very reassuring for those of us who hope to live longer than three years.

Some months ago, I had a conversation with Geoff Hinton—here in this House, as it happens—who is widely recognised to be one of the godfathers of AI and has just been awarded a Nobel prize. He resigned from Google to be free to warn the world about the existential risks from AI, and he is not alone in those views. His very well-informed view is that there is a risk of humans losing control of AI technology, with existential consequences. When I asked him what the good news was, he thought about it and said, “It’s a good time to be 76”. My rather flippant response was, “Well, at least we don’t have to worry about climate change”.

Seriously, the thing about existential risks is that we do not get a second chance. There is no way back. Even if the probability is very low, the consequence is so catastrophic for mankind that we cannot simply hope it does not happen. As the noble Lord, Lord Rees, the Astronomer Royal, said 10 years ago in a TED talk when discussing all cataclysmic risks:

“Our earth has existed for 45 million centuries, but this”

century

“is special—it’s the first where one species, ours, has the planet’s future in its hands … We and our political masters are in denial about catastrophic scenarios … But if an event is potentially devastating, it is worth paying a substantial premium to safeguard against it”,

rather like

“fire insurance on our house”.

The committee’s report devotes seven paragraphs out of 259 to the existential risks of the technology turning the tables on its human masters. This would suggest the committee did not take that risk all that seriously. Indeed, it says in paragraph 155:

“As our understanding of this technology grows … we hope concerns about existential risk will decline”.

I am not happy to rely on hope where existential risk is concerned, so I ask the Minister for some reassurance that this matter is in hand.

What steps are the Government taking, alone and with others, to mitigate the specific risk—albeit a small one—of humans losing control of AI systems such that they wipe out humanity?

These examples about the good and the bad highlight the two key principles in technology legislation and regulation. You have, on the one hand, the precautionary principle and, on the other, the innovation principle. Witnesses tended to portray the US approach, certainly at the federal level, as driven mostly by the large US tech companies, while the European Union’s AI Act was described as “prescriptive”, overly precautionary and “stifling innovation”. Witnesses saw this as an opportunity for the UK to continue to host world-leading companies but, as other noble Lords have said, we cannot delay. Indeed, the report calls for the UK Government and industry to prepare now to take advantage of the opportunities, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said.

At the same time, the Government should guard against regulatory capture or rent seeking by the big players, who may lobby for regulations benefiting them at a cost to other companies. We also considered the range of, and trade-offs between, open and closed models. While open models may offer greater access and competition, they may make it harder to control the proliferation of dangerous capabilities. While closed models may offer more control and security, they may give too much power to the big tech companies. What is the Government’s current thinking on the range of closed and open models and those in between? Who are they consulting to inform this thinking?

The previous Government’s AI Safety Summit was welcomed by many, and we heard calls to address the immediate risks from LLMs since malicious activities, such as fake pictures and fake news, become easier and cheaper with LLMs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Healy said. As the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Strasburger, said, witnesses told us about the catastrophic risks, which are defined as about 1,000 UK deaths and tens of billions in financial damages. They believe that these were unlikely in the next few years, but not impossible, as next-generation capabilities come online. Witnesses suggested mandatory safety tests for high-risk, high-impact models. Can the Minister explain the current Government’s thinking on mandatory safety tests, especially for the high-risk, high-impact models?

At the same time, witnesses warned against a narrative of AI being mostly a safety issue. They wanted the Government to speak more about innovation and opportunity, and to focus on the three pillars of AI. The first is data training and evaluation; the second is about algorithms and the talent to write, and perhaps to rewrite, them; and the third is computing power. As other noble Lords have said, they criticise the current Government’s decision to scrap the exascale supercomputer announced by the previous Government. Can the Minister explain where he sees the UK in relation to each of the three pillars, especially on computing power?

As the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and others have said, one of the trickiest issues we discussed was copyright. Rights holders want the power to check whether their data is used without their permission. At least one witness questioned whether this was technically possible. Some rights holders asked for investment in high-quality training datasets to encourage LLMs to use licensed material. In contrast, AI companies distinguished between inputs and outputs. For example, an input would be if you listened to lots of music to learn to play the blues guitar. AI companies argue that this is analogous to using copyrighted data for training. For them, an output would be if a musician plays a specific song, such as “Red House” by Jimi Hendrix. The rights holders would then be compensated, even though poor Jimi is long dead. However, rights holders criticised this distinction, arguing that it undermines the UK’s thriving creative sector, so you can see the challenge that we have. Can the Minister share the Government’s thinking on copyright material as training data?

For the overall regulatory framework, the Government have been urged to empower sector regulators to regulate proportionally, considering the careful balance and sometimes trade-off between innovation and precaution. Most witnesses recommended that the UK forge its own path on AI regulation—fewer big corporations than the US but more flexible than the EU. We should also be aware that technology is usually ahead of regulation. If you try too much a priori legislation, you risk stifling innovation. At the same time, no matter now libertarian you may be, when things go wrong voters expect politicians and regulators to act.

To end, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government plan to align with the US’s more corporate approach or the EU’s less innovative AI regulation, or to forge an independent path so that the UK can be a home for world-leading LLM and AI companies?

There are also various macro factors that the industry is clear on and that must be part of any AI plan or growth strategy for the UK. First, the availability of large datasets, as has been mentioned in this debate, is critical to the development of LLMs. Secondly, increasing the national availability of compute power will be directly proportionate to the advancement of generative AI. Thirdly, energy requirements to support compute must be considered as part of the investment landscape and even as part of national critical infrastructure. That is why there was such disappointment at the decision by this Government to cancel the investment into delivering the exascale computer in Edinburgh. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and ask the Minister how the Government will mitigate the impact of the loss of this compute power in the UK.

There is one other major consideration that has been mentioned already, and that businesses all raised—regulation. The AI industry is desperately keen to input into any development of regulatory considerations and is looking for signals from this Government as to their approach.

In July the Secretary of State for DSIT, Mr Kyle, said in a Written Statement that in line with the Labour Party’s manifesto, some AI companies will be regulated. Legislation would be

“highly targeted and will support growth and innovation by ending regulatory uncertainty”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/7/24; col. 34WS.]

Four months later, on 6 November at the Future of AI Summit, the Secretary of State said that legislation would be introduced “next year”—that is a large 12-month window. In August, Mr Kyle said that legislation would focus on the most advanced LLM models and would not regulate the entire industry. It feels a bit like a trail of breadcrumbs being laid, with the industry not knowing when or where the next crumb indicating a sense of regulatory direction will be found.

As I mentioned, every AI business and sector partner I have met has requested both clarity and the opportunity to input into regulatory development, but has felt uncertain about how the Government are developing their thinking. The industry has been clear on the need for any regulation to be proportionate, to avoid duplication with existing technology-neutral rules and to minimise regulatory fragmentation. For example, this is key to the UK financial services industry’s international competitiveness and its role as an enabler of economic growth across the UK. For a leading tech-enabled industry that has been using advanced technologies safely and effectively for years, disproportionate legislation would create unnecessary regulatory burdens and stifle operations and trade, slowing innovation and productivity, and putting our firms at a global competitive disadvantage. Have the Government established a series of clear principles that will be used in the development of targeted and proportionate regulation?

As my noble friend Lady Stowell highlighted, I am also aware, through discussions with major investors, that the development of the regulatory environment in the UK is being closely viewed to assess how attractive our industry is and how much international investment may flow into it. Global investors clearly see an opportunity for the UK to learn from the US light-touch approach but also from what appears to be the vice-like grip approach the EU has taken with the development of its landmark AI Act.

By the way, I do not take this view on EU regulation as my own without input from others. Notably, I attended the AI CogX summit in London at the beginning of October, where an MEP who had worked on the Act stated that he believed the EU had

“created a barrier to entry”

and established a law that had such a high cost that it was creating compliance problems. It appears that there is a sense that the EU AI Act has taken a wrong turn and is already diminishing both innovation and the flow of investment into the region. What assessment are the Government making of the Act, and has its early impact on the region been discussed with EU counterparts?

To conclude, I have a few quick-fire questions. The previous Government had committed to a pro-innovation regulatory approach—will this Government too? Will the Government’s AI action plan include a suggested regulatory approach for the UK? When will it be published?

I am pleased that the Government took forward some of the committee’s suggestions about the AI risk register. However, while addressing the risks of AI is critical, we cannot afford to let fear dominate the conversation. The greatest danger lies in failing to seize the opportunities that this technology presents. If the UK focuses solely on managing risks, we will fall behind international competitors who are racing ahead with bold ambition.

I do not mean just what is happening in the US and China. Government spending on AI in France since 2018 is estimated to have reached €7.2 billion, which is 60% more than in the UK. Here the Labour Government, since they were elected, cancelled investment in the Edinburgh exascale computing facility. This sends the wrong message about the UK’s ambition. Unless we are bolder and more ambitious, our reputation as an international leader in AI will become a distant memory. Our new inquiry into scaling up in AI and creative tech will investigate this topic further.

To lead on the global stage, the UK must adopt a vision of progress that attracts the brightest talent, fosters ground-breaking research and encourages a responsible AI ecosystem. I hope that the Government’s long-awaited AI opportunities action plan will be as positive as its title suggests. However, I have also heard talk of closer alignment with EU approaches, which sounds less promising. I will say more about this in a moment. I hope the Minister will confirm today that the Government will embrace a bold, optimistic vision for AI in the UK.

With that ambition in mind, let me highlight three key findings from our report, which are particularly pertinent as the Government formulate their vision for AI. These are: the importance of open market competition, the need for a proportionate approach to regulation, and the urgent issue of copyright.

I will start with competition. Ever since the inception of the internet, we have seen technology markets become dominated by very few companies, notably in cloud and search. The AI market is also consolidating. As Stability AI told us last year, there is a real risk of repeating mistakes we saw years ago. No Government should pick winners, but they should actively promote a healthy and level playing field and make open competition an explicit policy objective for AI. Lots of indicators show that the transformational benefits to society and our economy will be at the application layer of AI. We must not let the largest tech firms running the powerful foundation models create a situation where they have the power to throttle the kind of disruptive innovators that will power our future growth.

I was concerned to see the Secretary of State advocating for tech companies to be treated as if they were nation states. I appreciate that their economic heft and influence is extraordinary. Of course we value and want to attract their investment, but we need to be careful about what kind of message we send. Do we really want to say that private companies are on an equal footing with democratically elected Governments? I do not believe we do. I would be grateful if the Minister would reassure the House that the Government intend to deter bad behaviour by big tech companies, not defer to it.

Moving on, the committee called for an AI strategy that focuses on “supporting commercial opportunities”, academic research and spin-outs. As the Government consider AI legislation, they should ensure that innovation and competition are their guiding focus. They must avoid policies that limit open-source AI development or exclude innovative smaller players. When some of us were in San Francisco, we heard about recent efforts to legislate frontier models in California, which sparked varied concerns from stakeholders, ranging from big tech to small start-ups. We understand that getting these things right is a challenge, but it is one that must be met.

Future safety rules are a good example. Our report called for mandatory safety tests for high-risk, high-impact models. But the key thing here is proportionality. It is important for the riskiest and most capable models to have some safety requirements—just look at the pace of progress in Chinese LLMs, for example—and the AI Safety Institute is making progress on standards. But if the Government set the bar for these standards too low and capture too many businesses, it will curb innovation and undermine the whole purpose of having flexible rules. Again, I would be really grateful if the Minister would reassure me and the House that the Government will ensure that any new safety tests will apply only to the largest and riskiest models, and not stifle new market entrants.

Many US tech firms and investors told us the UK’s sector-led approach to AI regulation is the right route. It strikes a balance between ensuring reasonable regulatory oversight while not drowning start-ups and scale-ups in red tape. In contrast, some investors said the EU’s approach had given them pause for thought. Regulatory alignment with the EU should not be pursued for its own sake. The UK needs an AI regime that works in our national interest. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could assure the House that he will not compromise the UK’s AI potential out by closely aligning us with Europe in this area. Our regulatory independence is a real advantage we must not lose.

Relying on existing regulators to ensure good outcomes from AI will work only if they are properly resourced and empowered. The committee was not satisfied that regulators were sufficiently prepared to take on this task. On that, we drew attention to the slow pace of setting up the Government’s central support functions which are supposed to provide expertise and co-ordination to the regulators and check they have the right tools for the job. It would be good to hear from the Minister that progress is being made on all these fronts.

We must also be careful to avoid regulatory capture by the established tech companies in an area where government and regulators will be constantly playing catch-up and needing to draw in external business expertise. I was pleased to see that DSIT has published the conflicts of interest for key senior figures. That sort of transparency within government is much needed and sets a really good example to everyone else.

Finally, I turn to copyright and the unauthorised use of data—a topic that the committee has continued to investigate in our current inquiry on the future of news. We were disappointed by the previous Government’s lack of progress on copyright. It is crucial that we create the necessary conditions to encourage AI innovation, but this should not come at the cost of the UK’s creative industries, which contribute over £100 billion a year to the UK economy. The approach of setting up round tables, led by the Intellectual Property Office, was not convincing and, predictably, it has not solved much.

But I have not been impressed with the new Government’s approach so far either. There has been little action to address this period of protracted uncertainty, one which is increasingly entrenching the status quo with negative consequences for rights holders and AI start-ups. A handful of powerful players continue to dominate and exploit their position with impunity. It is good to see more licensing deals emerging. Advocates say this is a positive development which recognises news publishers’ contribution. But critics argue that the deals are effectively an insurance policy which further cement big tech’s position. More scrutiny of this is needed. I very much hope that the Minister will tell us today when the Government will set out their next steps on copyright. We must find a way forward and one that works for the UK.

I note that the Minister in a previous role has before advocated for an opt-out approach to text and data mining. He will know that the previous Government did not adopt that approach because of how badly it went down with the content creators. Rights holders must have a way of checking whether their request to block crawlers has been respected. There need to be meaningful sanctions for developers if the rules are not followed. At the moment, the only option is a high-risk court case, probably for a very limited payout. This is not a satisfactory solution, especially when a huge disparity of legal resources exists between the publisher and tech firm. Unless these fundamental shortcomings are resolved, a new regime will be woefully inadequate. I will be disappointed if the Minister proposes an opt-out regime without also providing details of a transparency framework and an enforcement mechanism. If the Government intend to pursue that path, could the Minister explain how he has addressed the concerns of the publishers, when the previous Government could not? It is important to note—and I am very pleased to see this—that the industry itself is coming up with solutions, whether through partnerships or the development of new AI licensing marketplaces. Indeed, there have been some announcements only this week.

All that brings me back to the point that I made at the beginning. Large language models and generative AI offer huge opportunities for innovation. In turn, we must remain innovative ourselves when considering how to harness the potential impact of this technology while also mitigating the risks. We must ensure that our minds and our markets remain open to new ideas. I look forward to hearing everyone’s contribution to today’s debate, both committee members and others with an interest in this area. I am especially looking forward to hearing from the Minister and learning more about his Government’s approach to this critical technology. I beg to move.

It is worth asking whether we have already missed the boat on the frontier of LLMs. Much of this activity lies in the US, and it is fair to ask whether we are better off building off existing open or closed foundational models at the application layer and using our unique datasets and great skills to develop models for public service outcomes in particular—in health, culture, education and elsewhere—that we and the world can trust and enjoy. Such an approach would acknowledge the limited market access that we have post Brexit, the limited compute and energy resources, and the limited amounts of investment.

However, those limitations should not constrain our ambition around other large models. This report is just about large language models, but others will come and it can help inform attitudes to frontier AI more generally. The coming together of robotics or biotechnology with generative AI and the development of quantum computing are yet to be fully realised, and we should ensure that as a nation we have capacity in some of these future frontiers. It is worth reminding noble Lords that if they thought generative AI was disruptive, some of these next frontiers will be much more so. The UK must prepare for a period of heightened technological turbulence while seeking to take advantage of the great opportunities.

As I said on Tuesday in our debate on the data Bill, we urgently need a White Paper or similar from the Government that paints the whole picture in this area of great technological opportunity and risk. The report finds that the previous Government’s attention was shifting too far towards a narrow view of high-stakes AI safety and that there is a need for a more balanced approach to drive widespread responsible innovation. I agree that the Government should set out a more positive vision for LLMs while also reflecting on risk and safety. Perhaps the Minister could set out in his wind-up when we are likely to get the wider vision that I think we need.

I agree with much of the report’s findings, such as that the Government should explore options for securing a sovereign LLM capability, particularly for public sector applications. The report also covered the likelihood of AI-triggered catastrophic events. While I agree that this is not an imminent risk, it needs a regulatory response. AI could pose an extinction risk to humanity, as recognised by world leaders, AI scientists and leading AI company CEOs. AI systems’ capabilities are growing rapidly. Superintelligent AI systems with intellectual capabilities beyond those of humans would present far greater risks than all existing AI systems currently. In other areas, such as medicine or defence, we put guard-rails around development to protect us from risks to humanity. Is this something the Minister agrees should be addressed with the flexible, risk-based rules referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell?

To conclude, this issue is urgent. We need to balance the desire to grow the economy by harnessing the potential of AI with the need to protect our critical cultural industries, as the noble Baroness referenced. It is a special feature of the British economy, and regulation is needed to protect it. On this I commend the Australian parliamentary joint committee on social media and traditional news. It calls for a number of things, including a must-carry framework to ensure the prominence of journalism across search and social media and a 15% levy on platform online advertising, including revenues technically billed offshore that would then be distributed by an independent body. Based on estimates, the rough scale of the proposal is that approximately 1 billion Australian dollars or £500 million of revenue would be generated, which is roughly two or three times the magnitude of what licensing is currently delivering in that country. That is a bold set of proposals and I share it to raise our sense of ambition about what we can do to balance regulation and the desire for growth. These are difficult choices, but the Government need to act urgently and I strongly commend this report to the House.

Our copyright law is absolutely clear on this. Moreover, the evidence given to the committee, such as from the Society of Authors, noted that AI systems “would simply collapse” if they could not access original talent. It was equally clear from Dan Conway, CEO of the Publishers Association, in his evidence to the committee, that LLMs

“are infringing copyrighted content on an absolutely massive scale … when they collect the information”

and in

“how they store the information and how they handle it”.

There was clear evidence from model outputs that developers had used pirated content from the Books3 database, and he alleged that they were “not currently compliant” with UK law. Microsoft countered with the argument that, basically, they were offering a public good and therefore copyright laws should not apply to ideas—good try.

I was also interested to receive a briefing from UK Music, which is concerned—justly, in my view—that the Government might try to introduce further text and data mining copyright exceptions, which would allow AI service providers to train their systems on music without the consent of, or need to compensate, its creators. The oft-made suggestion, as raised by the noble Baroness, is an opt-out system. It seems relatively practical: you could opt in if you did not mind your stuff being used, or you could opt out. But it will not work. There are no existing, effective opt-out schemes that reliably opt out content from training. Doing so is quite impossible. There is no way to have control over whether downstream uses of original work are opted out of generative AI training, since there is no control for the artist over the URLs where they are hosted—perhaps we should look at extraterritorial law. The evidence suggests that the majority of people who have the option to opt out of generative AI training do not even realise that they have the option. Moreover, if opt-out schemes are adopted, publishers and copyright holders will have only the illusion of choice. If they opt out of AI training, they opt out of being findable on the internet altogether.

Record keeping has also been suggested—I do not think the committee covered this, but I stand to be corrected. Currently there is no stand-alone legal requirement in the UK to disclose the material that AI systems are trained on, beyond the data protection law framework. I believe that record keeping should be mandatory.

AI cannot create in a vacuum. It needs huge data sets, so often drawn from copyrighted materials, to function. Clearly, it would be much better to encourage collaboration between the tech industry and the creative industries, instead of AI becoming a threat or being a threat, as it is. I implore AI companies to accept this thesis and ensure that they are transparent about how their models are trained and which data is used.

There are a lot of ideas around about group licensing and so on. It would be far more productive if the LLMs worked with the creatives. A lot of creatives are individuals or small companies. They just do not have the means to enforce their IP rights through the legal process or to track how their works are being used in AI training. That is why the committee’s recommendation that the IPO code must ensure that creators are fully empowered to exercise their rights is so important, alongside the requirement for developers to make clear whether their web crawlers are being used to acquire data for generative AI training or for other purposes.

Ultimately, AI’s integration into the creative industries brings a host of economic, ethical and legal challenges, but the most essential part is protecting the rights of creators to ensure fairness in the distribution of economic value, so that creators and the AI industry can both thrive. I trust the Government will ensure that the committee’s recommendations are implemented in full.