As the AI Action Summit wrapped up, the UK and US governments chose not to sign a joint international declaration promoting inclusive and sustainable artificial intelligence. Meanwhile, 61 countries, including major players like France, China, India, Japan, Australia, and Canada, endorsed a Statement on Inclusive and Sustainable Artificial Intelligence for People and the Planet. This statement highlighted several shared goals.
The priorities included making AI accessible to bridge the digital divide, ensuring that AI is open, ethical, and trustworthy, preventing market monopolies, and enhancing international cooperation. Leaders emphasized the necessity of diverse perspectives in the AI landscape and called for dialogues on AI governance among nations. They expressed the importance of safety, sustainable development, and adherence to international laws and human rights.
While the UK and US did not specify why they abstained from the declaration, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Keir Starmer stressed the need to align initiatives with UK national interests. During the summit, US Vice President JD Vance warned against excessive AI regulation, saying it could stifle innovation. He also raised concerns about any regulatory frameworks that could disadvantage American companies or lead to ideological biases, particularly regarding the relationship with China.
This summit followed previous gatherings like the AI Safety Summit in the UK and the AI Seoul Summit in South Korea, both of which came under fire for their lack of inclusivity and focused mainly on the risks of AI. In contrast, discussions at the Paris summit centered on reducing bureaucratic hurdles while promising significant investments in AI infrastructure.
Critics like Full Fact highlighted the UK government’s decision as a potential blow to its reputation as a leader in safe and ethical AI. Andrew Dudfield, the head of Full Fact’s AI efforts, called for decisive action against the dangers of AI-generated misinformation. AI expert Adam Leon Smith pointed out that a vast majority of tech professionals believe the UK should spearhead the development of global ethical standards in AI technologies.
With the spotlight on deregulation, some worry this could lead to a “race to the bottom” concerning AI oversight. Jeni Tennison from Connected by Data noted the reluctance of the current US administration to embrace commitments like inclusivity and equity in AI. She echoed concerns that this repeated emphasis on deregulation undermines necessary controls to ensure responsible AI development.
Professor Sandra Wachter reminded everyone that regulations aren’t about stifling innovation; instead, they aim to make AI safer and less biased. She questioned who truly benefits from the absence of regulations, pointing out the risks posed to individuals if AI were allowed to operate without oversight.
On criticism of the summit’s statement, Gaia Marcus from the Ada Lovelace Institute expressed concern that it does not adequately address the commitments necessary to ensure AI is safe and accountable. However, she did commend the summit for proposing a future where AI serves the public interest.
Mike Bracken from Public Digital suggested that while the UK and US’s refusal to sign might symbolize rising tensions, it should not overshadow the substantive initiatives emerging from the summit, like the Coalition for Sustainable AI. He emphasized the importance of transforming AI into a public good, rather than merely a tool for big tech companies.
In his view, the focus should be on practical outcomes from the summit rather than formal agreements. Bracken believed that a cooperative spirit fostered during the summit could enhance diplomatic relationships moving forward.