The UK government has rejected proposals from members of the the(sic) House of Lords to bring AI vendors within the scope of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill.
Cybersecurity minister Baroness Lloyd of Effra argued that regulating AI vendors and frontier model developers through the bill would not prevent hostile actors from misusing their products.
Addressing the Grand Committee on Tuesday, she said: "Bringing providers of AI services, those companies which are at the cutting edge of frontier AI development and their products, into the scope... would not address the harms that can be posed by some AI products and services, or specifically, it would not prevent their misuse by hostile actors."
The minister said the UK was instead taking "firm action" to secure AI through other channels. These include supporting the AI Security Institute (AISI), which works with vendors to test the security of models before their release.
Lloyd also pointed to the voluntary AI Cyber Security Code of Practice, which informed the first global AI cybersecurity standard, ETSI EN 304 223.
"This demonstrates our global leadership and commitment to shaping international technical standards which go wider than some of the issues raised in this bill," she claimed.
Members of the House of Lords - the upper house in UK parliament - offered numerous arguments for bringing AI within the bill's scope.
They cited reports of rogue agentic behavior involving Anthropic and OpenAI, as well as Bill Gates' concerns that commercial incentives are pushing AI development forward without adequate safeguards.
Lawmakers also questioned whether companies unable to prevent their agents from misbehaving should be trusted to follow voluntary ethical guidelines that they can rewrite at will.
"Have we not learned from countless experiences before in online safety, privacy, and in AI itself that allowing tech companies to set and mark their own homework endangers the public and our national security?" asked Baroness Kidron, a Crossbench peer and campaigner for online safety and digital rights.
Similarly, Lord Tarassenko, a Crossbench peer and veteran AI researcher, pointed to the recent open letter penned by OpenAI warning that there will soon come a time when AI-orchestrated cyberattacks will become too prevalent to handle.
[...] The minister rejected several other amendments, including one that would require certain AI vendors to demonstrate that their products could not cross specified red lines, such as evading human oversight or assisting with the development of chemical weapons.
She also dismissed a proposal that would give the Secretary of State last-resort powers to order the shutdown of a datacenter or widely deployed AI system during a security or operational emergency.
Lloyd said the bill would instead allow the government to direct regulated entities, including datacenter operators but not AI vendors, to take or cease specified actions when their systems presented a qualifying risk. A power station could, for example, be instructed to stop using a particular AI model.
"We believe this is a more proportionate and effective response, as datacenters operate in highly complex ecosystems and AI systems are often distributed across different datacenters and jurisdictions," said Baroness Lloyd.
"It's much less desirable to direct multiple datacenters to shut down, and the impact this could have on services that rely on them, than to direct them to cease using an AI model."
Despite rejecting the amendments, Lloyd said the government remained willing to discuss AI regulation because of the technology's economic significance.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07, @05:09PM (1 child)
> Cybersecurity minister Baroness Lloyd of Effra argued that regulating AI vendors and frontier model developers through the bill would not prevent hostile actors from misusing their products.
I'm seeing parallels with gun control activists. No? "It won't stop criminals, but it will keep honest people honest." "Yes, that's the *intent* - if you *do* or *own* this, _you are a criminal_!!"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by aafcac on Monday September 07, @08:30PM
Also recycling. I have to memorize and apply a complicated system of what can and can't be recycled because somehow that's my responsibility to know and not the responsibility of the people that are creating the products to clearly mark. I should be able to just look at the item and know if it's going to be recyclable, I shouldn't have to guess whether it's 1 plastic or multiple types that can't easily be separated.
A lot of this just comes down to the fact that voters can't just get lobbyists for everything that might need it. I'm not sure how things are in the UK, but I'd wager there's something along those lines going on.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday September 07, @10:45PM
The UK's government is doing what every other government always does. Nothing of value to the people, but they can claim they are doing something "decisive!" and it gives them more power to control their citizens .
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
-- Ayn Rand
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."