The United States and the United Kingdom have declined to sign a global declaration advocating for “inclusive and sustainable” artificial intelligence. The agreement, endorsed by 60 nations at a Paris summit, aims to establish ethical, transparent, and secure AI governance frameworks. However, both Washington and London expressed reservations about its effectiveness in addressing broader regulatory and security concerns.
‘Not Enough Clarity’
As reported by The Guardian, a UK government representative acknowledged alignment with many aspects of the declaration but noted that it “didn’t provide enough practical clarity on global governance, nor sufficiently address harder questions around national security and the challenge AI poses to it.”
“We continue to collaborate with our global partners, as demonstrated by our commitments on sustainability and cybersecurity at the Paris AI Action Summit,” the spokesperson stated.
Vance’s Critique
The decision was announced shortly after US Vice President JD Vance delivered a pointed critique of European AI regulations, cautioning against “excessive regulation of the AI sector [that] could kill a transformative industry.”
Addressing global leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Vance warned that stringent oversight could hinder technological progress. He particularly criticised the European Union’s regulatory stance, arguing that “we need international regulatory regimes that foster the creation of AI technology rather than strangle it, and we need our European friends, in particular, to look to this new frontier with optimism rather than trepidation.”
‘Little Strategic Room’
While some speculated that the UK’s refusal to sign was influenced by US policy, a government source dismissed such claims, reported The Guardian. However, as reported by The Guardian, a Labour MP suggested that “we have little strategic room but to be downstream of the US,” warning that overly restrictive policies could discourage collaboration with major US AI firms.
Campaigners and AI experts voiced concern over the UK’s stance, warning that it could undermine its credibility as a leader in ethical AI development. Andrew Dudfield of Full Fact stressed the need for “bolder government action to protect people from corrosive AI-generated misinformation,” while Gaia Marcus from the Ada Lovelace Institute argued that rejecting the declaration “go[es] against the vital global governance that AI needs.”
Additionally, Vance warned against AI cooperation with authoritarian regimes, indirectly referencing China. Citing concerns over surveillance technology and data security, he emphasised that “partnering with such regimes, it never pays off in the long term.” “Some of us in this room have learned from experience partnering with them means chaining your nation to an authoritarian master that seeks to infiltrate, dig in and seize your information infrastructure. Should a deal seem too good to be true, just remember the adage that we learned in Silicon Valley, if you aren’t paying for the product: you are the product.”
Vance also reflected on last year’s AI Safety Summit in the UK, implying that excessive caution could impede progress. He argued that discussions on emerging technologies must strike a balance between risk management and fostering innovation. His speech underscored a fundamental rift in global AI governance that pits regulatory caution against technological advancement.
