If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
_________________________________________^ We are here
The UK government is to spend over £100 million ($125 million) to support regulators and researchers as it publishes its response to the AI Regulation White Paper consultation. Dubbed a "pro-innovation approach to AI regulation," one could also regard the outcome as more "wait and see" as lawmakers steer clear of imposing too …
"It plans to spend £10 million ($12.58 million) on upskilling regulators, "
If its anything like the other UK regulators , it will just roll over & do whatever the big companies want.
.. and probably develop a nice "revolving door" between the AI companies & the regulator (look at the farce of UK water (essentially non) regulation for an example)
2 weeks upskilling bootcamp for regulators to be held in Maldives.
- Envelopes of all colours. How to process them.
- SFO. How to keep them at distance.
- Business bottlenecks. How to exploit them for better yield.
- Fancy dinner or dark alley. Master the exchange process.
- SME question. Why can't they just go away?
- Smart property investment. Offshore structures.
- Black tie party.
"one could also regard the outcome as more "wait and see" as lawmakers steer clear of imposing too many restrictions and risk making the UK less attractive for AI investors."
"Let's not scare off business"
Wanna square the circle? How does not blocking the technology risk making the UK less attractive to investors in the technology? I did laugh at this line-
"Furthermore, innovation – by its nature – finds a way (to work within regulation)"
No it doesnt. Regulate too hard and innovators break the rules and the law. Did the free market capitalists find a way to work or the communists? North Korea or South? East or West Germany?
Or more recent we have Co2 producing industry moving out of highly regulated and into less regulated countries. We can have our cake and eat it doesnt work.
We can have our cake and eat it doesnt work.
Since far right took over, the goal for them is to empower big corporations and facilitate higher profits and inhibit competition.
The point is that to create environment where no SME can sensibly align their business with the regulation and at the same time allow big corporations to move production to less strict countries and then import any products to the country.
This way they don't have to fear competition, regulators are kept busy and government just have to keep the status quo and accept fat envelopes.
By the time the wheels come off of this, thousands of people become rich, have their families set for generations and they can retire to their private islands or gated communities, insulated from all the people and businesses they ruined.
and thanks to the media they own, people actually cheer for it!
"Instead, the government's context-based approach means existing regulators are empowered to address AI risks in a targeted way."
Hmm, context-based, empowered, targeted... sounds like a round of bullshit bingo is in full swing, there. Oh, and there will be a steering committee, too. The gang's all here! :)
As for the guy who thinks innovation works within regulation - no. That's why almost all of the big tech "gatekeeper" companies are left pondian.
I'm not convinced that AI needs too much regulation anyway, but it should come as no surprise that the British government is eager to be seen to be doing something they perceive as popular, but isn't eager to actually do it. Nor will the other side be any better, when they kick the current shower out in a few months. In fact, with a majority as large as I expect, they will probably be worse.
Are they brain damaged?
"This government is committed to supporting the AI and creative industries sectors so that they continue to flourish and are able to compete internationally.
"We are continuing to engage with stakeholders to work towards a shared approach which allows our AI and creative sectors to grow together. We will set out further proposals on the way forward soon."
No mention there of funding support being dependent upon government leading developments being of their choosing with political party apparatchiks parachuted in to take over primary command leverage for remote access control from innovative technologists pioneering new worldly orders for new world orders with command of future controls that deliver rapid multi-displinary progress to systems administrations in dire straits and expanding states of internal decay.
It is indeed fortunate that government intervention and help with all manner of selfish self-serving strings attached is not something needed by AI and creative industries sectors
However, it also acknowledges that "the challenges posed by AI technologies will ultimately require legislative action in every country once understanding of risk has matured."
Good luck with the herding of those headless chickens on a Sisyphean task.
I can only assume that from the paultry sum, that Sunak and Goons haven't got their shares bought yet, otherwise the figure would be much higher. After all, there's no purse, like the public purse. Look at the NHS, shed loads of cash poured into it, but its actually poured out of it into both Red and Blue Tory shareholder pockets. Why would AI be any different? Given the massive success this government has with IT projects, expect an absolute ballsup when it does happen, but at least the goons will have their shares by that time.
Go on, have a poke, pretty sure you'll mark me down whatever your favourite colour of corruption happens to be.