This week’s edition of Teen Politics: Weekly Politics Unpacked explains why both the UK and the US refused to sign an international agreement on AI earlier this week. I also recommend an article about Labour’s disregard for the climate crisis whilst fixated on growth, and urge you to sign the National Union of Students’ petition to universalise the minimum wage.
Both UK and US Refuse to Sign AI Agreement
Over Monday and Tuesday (10th and 11th February), participants from over 100 countries met in Paris at the AI Action Summit, which led to a total of 61 countries signing a joint declaration entitled ‘Statement on Inclusive and Sustainable Artificial Intelligence for People and the Planet’. However, whilst signatory countries encompassed a wide range from France and Canada to India and China, there were two notable exceptions – the US and the UK.
(Although all participants were able to enjoy the opening compilation of President Macron being deepfaked into films and TV series)
The declaration established numerous international shared priorities when it comes to the development of AI. These include promoting AI accessibility for developing nations, making AI “open, transparent, ethical, safe, secure, and trustworthy”, encouraging sustainable approaches to AI, and considering uses which have “positive” impacts on people’s jobs.
Importantly, the statement sought to ensure that AI would be “human rights-based”, detailing that this is only possible with effective AI governance by individual states, which must include many different groups with an interest in its development. This would help to secure, as set out in the declaration, “the protection of human rights, gender equality, linguistic diversity, protection of consumers and of intellectual property rights”.
And as highlighted by Gaia Marcus, director of the Ada Lovelace Institute, the proposal for a sustainable future use of AI was solidified through the Coalition for Sustainable AI, and for maintaining widely accessible public-interest uses of future technologies through the AI foundation if it receives enough support and retains real independence. Although, he did criticise the statement’s failure to create a tool or mechanism to hold tech companies accountable for the harm they cause.
Yet despite the basic ethical foundations, both the UK and US governments decided against committing their countries to the values laid out above. Although, the exact reasoning for their joint refusal is currently speculative, US Vice President, JD Vance, happened to make a speech during the summit. Vance’s speech heavily criticised what he called “excessive regulation of the AI sector”, thought to refer to recent EU attempts at AI regulation, which he suggested may “strangle it”, ultimately “kill[ing] a transformative industry”.
Another point of issue for Vance was cooperation with China, on which he said:
“We feel very strongly that AI must remain free from ideological bias and that American AI will not be co-opted into a tool for authoritarian censorship”
Because of course, American AI is undoubtedly entirely free of ideological bias and not at all a tool of censorship. Oh wait…
Making light of this and commenting on the potential geopolitics, Jeni Tennison, executive director of the non-profit, Connected by Data, said:
“It’s unsurprising that the current US administration would decline to sign a commitment to more inclusive, equitable and sustainable AI given their version of free speech blacklists these terms. It’s unclear if the UK government objects to any particular part of the summit statement, or is simply trying to stay on the good side of Trump and US investors.”
But why has the UK made the same decision as the US? Firstly, it is worth noting that this represents quite the turn around from Rishi Sunak’s time as PM when the UK government held the world’s first AI Safety Summit in November 2023. And somewhat thankfully, the UK did in fact sign other agreements at the Paris summit on sustainability and cybersecurity, and a Downing Street spokesperson has assured us that their decision was not led by the US in any way, saying:
“This isn’t about the US, this is about our own national interest, ensuring the balance between opportunity and security”
But if “the balance between opportunity and security” doesn’t have space for human rights, ethics, or any of the other values the statement hopes to protect, then I think we may have a right to be concerned. This is relatively well summarised by Michael Birtwistle, also of the Ada Lovelace Institute, who commented:
“It’s difficult to pinpoint what exactly in that statement the government disagrees with”
And in the words of Full Fact’s head of AI, Andrew Dudfield:
“By refusing to sign today’s international AI Action Statement the UK Government risks undercutting its hard-won credibility as a world leader for safe, ethical and trustworthy AI innovation”
“We need bolder government action to protect people from corrosive AI-generated misinformation that can damage public health and disrupt democracy at unprecedented speed and scale”
Even an AI expert from the Chartered Institute for IT complained that:
“The world’s richest countries will ultimately need to show they can put geopolitics aside … and be responsible enough to work together at this critical moment in human history”
Although the trade body representing AI businesses in the UK, creatively named UKAI, cautiously welcomed the government’s decision, hoping it indicates a willingness to “explore more pragmatic solutions”. But a founder of digital transformation consultant Public Digital, outlined that the UK and US governments’ refusal to sign should not overshadow the “actual, progressive delivery-based outcomes” of the summit, identified as the sustainability coalition and the public interest AI foundation, known as Current AI.
Ultimately, I’d like to simply summarise with the poignant comments of Sandra Wachter from the Oxford Internet Institute on AI regulation:
“Who does really win when there is no regulation? How is your life improved if sexist AI decides that your child is not allowed to attend university? How is your life improved when opaque AI fires you, and you don’t even receive an explanation? How is your life improved if AI is allowed to spread misinformation on the web? How is your life improved if we use unsafe and untested AI in healthcare?
I think we really need to question this rhetoric … Who wins if there is no regulation? Is it eight billionaires or the other eight billion people?”
Weekly Recommendation and Action
In continuation of the idea of trying to promote growth at any cost, this week I’d like to urge you to read this relatively short article from openDemocracy which discusses Labour’s obsession with growth in the face of the climate crisis.
And lastly, but certainly not least, this week I would like to encourage you to sign a National Union of Students’ petition. This petition is a part of their new ‘A Fair Deal for Our Futures’ campaign, which demands the government universalise the minimum wage, instead of having different rates for under and over-21s.
Teen Politics 
Leave a comment