Tag Archives: artificial intelligence

Risk-based or sector led? How we can expect the government to regulate AI

Elon Musk’s AI chatbot, Grok, has received significant backlash in recent weeks after its ability to create sexualised images of women and children generated widespread media headlines. The scale of the public outcry has sharpened concerns about how quickly AI capabilities are outpacing existing safeguards. This has increased pressure on the government to more stringently regulate AI, which is reshaping industries at an unprecedented pace, bringing both opportunities and risks.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer previously suggested that the government would move away from the last Conservative administration’s ‘pro-innovation regulatory framework’ for AI, as set out in its white paper on AI published in 2023. Instead, Starmer has publicly emphasised the need for an overarching regulatory framework with additional protections in specific areas. He has also expressed concerns about the potential risks and impacts of AI, while acknowledging its transformative potential for society. In January 2025, the government published its AI Opportunities Action Plan, which set out its ambitions to use AI to ‘turbocharge’ economic growth and create AI growth zones to speed up planning processes for AI infrastructure.

The government’s approach to AI differs from the EU’s risk-based framework, which classifies AI systems into four categories: unacceptable risk, high risk, limited risk, and minimal risk. Each category has a different set of regulations and requirements for organisations developing or using AI systems. UK-based organisations with operations in the EU or those deploying AI systems within the bloc are likely to fall under the jurisdiction of the EU AI Act, requiring UK organisations to keep abreast of legislative changes and any potential future misalignments between the UK and EU in this area.

Although Starmer has pledged to turn the UK into an ‘AI superpower’, ministers have so far struggled to find the right balance between regulation and harnessing AI’s economic potential. At the end of 2024, the government proposed relaxing copyright laws to allow developers to train AI models on any material they can legally access. The plans received widespread criticism from creatives and high-profile musicians who would be required to opt-out of having their work used. Ministers have since acknowledged that the move was misguided and announced that the associated legislation would be delayed while they develop a more extensive policy framework.

It is likely that we will see new legislation announced in the form of an AI and Copyright Bill at the King’s speech, which is due to take place in May 2026. This presents an opportunity for businesses to engage with the government at a key stage of the policymaking process.

The legislation is likely to focus on safety, copyright protections, and transparency. The government has been clear that it does not want to introduce measures that could drive AI investment out of the UK. Appearing before the Digital and Communications Committee in January 2026, technology secretary Liz Kendall stated that many of the larger AI companies are opposed to ‘onerous burdens’, suggesting the government is likely to adopt a cautious approach in its efforts to more stringently regulate AI to avoid deterring potential investment in the UK.

This means we can expect the government to attempt to tread a line between the EU’s risk-based framework and the deregulatory approach taken in the US in order to strike the right balance between innovation and oversight. Despite both the EU and UK focussing on principles such as accountability and transparency, the diverging approaches observed so far in practice mean a consistent approach to the regulation of AI is unlikely, at least in the near term.

If you would like to discuss AI regulation in more detail, please reach out to Annabelle Black at annabelle@gkstrategy.com.

GK Strategy in Conversation with Steve Brine and Richard Meddings

GK Strategy was pleased to host former Chair of NHS England Richard Meddings and former health minister and Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee Steve Brine for an ‘in conversation with’ discussion on Thursday 15 May to examine some of the challenges facing the government, the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS 10 months into Labour’s term in office.

Meddings and Brine took a deep dive into a range of issues affecting the health and social care sector, exploring the implications for investors and service providers. From funding pressures to the abolition of NHS England, the discussion drew on our speakers’ extensive experience to evaluate the road ahead for the health system and the reforms the government will need to deliver to meet its ambitious policy objectives.

Much of the discussion focused on the NHS and the role of ICBs in a reformed health system following the announcement that NHS England would be abolished. There was agreement that health secretary Wes Streeting had received a tough inheritance, including mounting pressures on the health service and a poor fiscal climate making a significant injection of additional funding unlikely. The panellists highlighted the urgent need to redesign governance frameworks that better meet the demands of a modern health service.

Meddings and Brine spoke in detail about the role of technology in reforming the delivery of healthcare. They agreed there needs to be a steady stream of investment to maximise the increasing role AI will play in improving patient care and delivering efficiency savings within the NHS. The pair emphasised the need for Streeting to secure the ear of Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, who they argued will need to prioritise health targets despite a constrained financial budget.

The two panellists agreed that reducing the elective care backlog and meeting the 18-week referral to treatment target was the key retail offer to voters at the general election and will be the main health priority for the government. This is despite wider initiatives that might have more significant long-term outcomes for the health of the UK’s population. Other short-term priorities for the NHS that were discussed included reducing the number of people in urgent care, increasing access to primary care, and improving cancer detection rates.

Towards the end of the session, the discussion shifted to the upcoming 10-Year Health Plan which will set out the government’s healthcare reforms in detail. Meddings and Brine agreed it is likely to prioritise prevention, the shift from hospital-based to community care and greater digital integration, which were the three ambitions put forward by Labour pre-election. The panellists highlighted that meaningful progress will depend on early intervention strategies and targeted investment, particularly in tackling obesity, cancer and mental health challenges.

For investors and stakeholders, the panel’s message was clear: steady investment in health, coupled with a pragmatic embrace of technology and AI presents a significant opportunity to reshape the delivery of healthcare at a time when demands on the NHS continues to rise.

Health, social care, and life sciences is one of the GK’s core sectors. GK supports a range of businesses and investors to navigate the political, policy and regulatory landscape and help them to realise their commercial objectives. Please get in touch if you would like to discuss the impact of politics and policy on your business or investment decisions.

Artificial Intelligence: ‘The Future of Defence Capability’

GK Senior Adviser Robert Blackmore assesses how world leaders will increasingly need to consider the implications of incorporating AI as part of their defensive capabilities, and looks ahead to this week’s summit on the governance of artificial intelligence.

This week Bletchley Park will host a global summit on safety and Artificial Intelligence. For the first time, world leaders, AI companies and researchers will come together to discuss the opportunities and risks surrounding the development of the most revolutionary technology since the discovery of nuclear fusion. The summit aims to initiate the development of a global consensus on AI governance.

Whereas much of the initial focus on the purpose of nuclear technology had military connotations, experts today highlight the impact AI may have on every aspect of our lives. Bletchley Park will therefore host discussions on a wide range of potential over-arching implications of AI. However, with an historic rise in global deaths by conflict reported by the Institute for Economics and Peace, not least following Russia’s second invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and the latest outbreak of violence in the Middle East, it is important to consider the role of AI and defence in isolation.

Earlier this year, Lord Sedwill, the former National Security Adviser, suggested to the House of Lords Select Committee on AI in Weapons Systems that AI was “the future of defence capability”. While he assured Peers that such a development would not equate to “Terminator” or “Matrix” style killer robots – a view that is not universal – the implication was clear: developments in AI have the potential to have dramatic ramifications for the defence sector, and in turn, the future of warfare.

This has not been lost on the world leaders. In 2018, rather ominously, the United States warned: ‘Our adversaries and competitors are aggressively working to define the future of these powerful technologies according to their interests, values, and societal models. Their investments threaten to erode U.S. military advantage, destabilize the free and open international order, and challenge our values and traditions with respect to human rights and individual liberties.’

In response, the Pentagon published an AI Strategy that sought to transform the ‘speed and agility’ of US military operations and identified several potential benefits of AI, including improving situational awareness and reduce collateral damage. Meanwhile, in 2022, the UK Ministry of Defence outlined its ‘Defence Artificial Intelligence Strategy’, highlighting its ambition for the UK Armed Forces to be the world’s most ‘effective, efficient, trusted and influential Defence organisation’ for its size.

Nor has the potential of AI been lost on the defence industry. This year defence contractor Leidos formed a strategic partnership with tech giant Microsoft, while Lockhead Martin has invested multi millions in AI technology and established and ‘AI factory’, as reported by Forbes, to ‘streamline access of its software writers to the resources they need for generating AI applications’.

AI already plays a crucial role in military operations. For example, it is being used by the Ukrainian military to rapidly review satellite images and video feeds from drones. Crucially, in this scenario AI acts a vital supporting tool for military operators to make decisions. Ultimately, final output remains the preserve of human, as opposed to artificial, intelligence.

This is the crux of the matter. As AI’s capabilities increase, how much agency should it be given to act according to the set of instructions established by its human handler? Can we trust a weapon acting autonomously not to make catastrophic errors in the context of life and death scenarios? Once you remove human oversight from weaponry, you are left with Automated Weapons Systems (AWS), loosely defined as systems that can select and attack a target without human intervention.

The closest such weapon in existence is believed to be STM’s Kargu-2 drone. It has been deployed by the Turkish, and reportedly Azerbaijan, armed forces. Unsurprisingly, there are significant ethical concerns about the further development of such weapons. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has argued AWS risk escalating conflicts in an unpredictable manner and thus potentially aggravating humanitarian needs, while Amnesty International claim such machines would automate killing, treat it as a technical undertaking, and refrain from making life and death decisions with any empathy or compassion.

As it stands, there are no formal international rules governing the use of AI in a military context. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has called for a legally binding instrument to prohibit lethal autonomous weapon systems without human oversight by 2026. While in February, 33 Latin American and Caribbean States called for the urgent negotiation of a legally binding international treaty on autonomy in weapons systems that will guarantee human oversight. As recently as October, Pakistan’s representative to the United Nations’ First Committee on Disarmament and International Security stated that “We are at the verge of a monumental step in human technological history, heralded by the advent of artificial intelligence”, warning that there were insufficient guardrails governing the ‘design, development and deployment’ of AWS.

However, the obstacles that the creation of an international agreement would face are stern. Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman, during a hearing of the House of Lords AI in Weapons Systems Select Committee in May, told Peers that the speed at which AWS technology is developing would inevitably outpace any negotiation of such treaty. Furthermore, for it to have purpose, it would require agreement in good faith between adversaries. Negotiations over nuclear disarmament between the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, culminating in the much-heralded 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), has shown that this is possible. However, the necessary geopolitical conditions must be in place, as they where in the late 1980’s between the two global superpowers. It is for this reason, this week’s AI Safety Summit could be so crucial, even if it is not directly dealing with the use of artificial intelligence in a combat setting. For China, despite its soaring tensions with several countries present, not least the United States, will reportedly play a key role at the summit. A delegation from the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology will be in attendance. While, the Telegraph suggests that Professor Yi Zeng, a leading academic at the CCP-controlled Chinese Academy of Sciences, will chair a behind-closed-doors session focusing on the risk that AI mechanisms may “unexpectedly develop dangerous capabilities”. It would be a great surprise if AI in the context of warfare was left unmentioned.

Therefore, at a time when the geopolitical stakes are so high, the AI Safety Summit has the potential to establish a common cause in relation to the governance of AI. This could perhaps lay the foundations for a pathway, however embryonic, towards an international guardrail in relation to Automated Weapons Systems.