The technology secretary has demanded an overhaul of the UK\u2019s leading artificial intelligence institute in a wide-ranging letter that calls for a switch in focus to defence and national security, as well as leadership changes.<\/p>\n
Peter Kyle said it was clear further action was needed to ensure the government-backed Alan Turing Institute met its full potential.<\/p>\n
In a letter to ATI\u2019s chair, seen by the Guardian, Kyle said the institute should be changed to prioritise defence, national security and \u201csovereign capabilities\u201d \u2013 a reference to nation states being able to control their own AI technology<\/a>.<\/p>\n The call for new priorities implies a downgrading of ATI\u2019s focus on health and the environment, which are two of three core subjects for the institute, alongside defence and security, under its \u201cTuring 2.0\u201d strategy.<\/p>\n \u201cMoving forward, defence and national security projects should form a core of ATI\u2019s activities, and relationships with the UK\u2019s security, defence, and intelligence communities should be strengthened accordingly,\u201d Kyle wrote.<\/p>\n Making clear that the Turing 2.0 strategy did not meet government requirements<\/a>, Kyle indicated that he expected leadership changes at ATI.<\/p>\n \u201cTo realise this vision, it is imperative that the ATI\u2019s leadership reflects the institute\u2019s reformed focus,\u201d he wrote. \u201cWhile we acknowledge the success of the current leadership in delivering reform at the institute during a difficult period, careful consideration should be given to the importance of an executive team who possesses a relevant background and sector knowledge to lead this transition.\u201d<\/p>\n ATI is chaired by Doug Gurr, the former head of Amazon\u2019s UK operations and interim chair of the UK\u2019s competition watchdog<\/a>.<\/p>\n The institute is going through a restructuring<\/a> under its chief executive, Jean Innes, which one in five staff have said puts ATI\u2019s credibility in \u201cserious jeopardy\u201d. At the end of last year, ATI employed 440 staff, but it has since launched a redundancy process.<\/p>\n Although the institute is nominally independent, it recently secured \u00a3100m from the government in a five-year funding deal. The letter said ATI\u2019s \u201clonger-term funding arrangement\u201d could be reviewed next year. The government would maintain its current level of research and development from national security and defence for the next three years, Kyle wrote, and would increase the number of defence and national security staff embedded in the institute.<\/p>\n Dame Wendy Hall, a professor of computer science at the University of Southampton and the co-chair of a 2017 government AI review, said ATI would cease to be a national institute under the government\u2019s proposed changes.<\/p>\n skip past newsletter promotion<\/a><\/p>\n A weekly dive in to how technology is shaping our lives<\/p>\n Privacy Notice: <\/strong>Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy<\/a>. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy<\/a> and Terms of Service<\/a> apply.<\/p>\n after newsletter promotion<\/p>\n \u201cIf the institute focuses on defence and security it ceases to be a national institute on AI,\u201d Hall said. \u201cIt\u2019s not broad enough. If the government wants an AI institute that does defence and security then it should just call it that.\u201d<\/p>\n In February, the government indicated a focus on national security with its AI strategy by renaming its AI Safety Institute, established under the premiership of Rishi Sunak, the AI Security Institute.<\/p>\n