From Turing to Tomorrow: The UK's Approach to AI Regulation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The UK has pursued a distinctive path in AI regulation: less cautious than the EU but more willing to address risks than the US, and has emerged as a global leader in coordinating AI safety efforts. Impressive developments from companies like London-based DeepMind began to spark concerns in the UK about catastrophic risks from around 2012, although regulatory discussion at the time focussed on bias and discrimination. By 2022, these discussions had evolved into a "pro-innovation" strategy, in which the government directed existing regulators to take a light-touch approach, governing AI at point of use, but avoided regulating the technology or infrastructure directly. ChatGPT arrived in late 2022, galvanising concerns that this approach may be insufficient. The UK responded by establishing an AI Safety Institute to monitor risks and hosting the first international AI Safety Summit in 2023, but - unlike the EU - refrained from regulating frontier AI development in addition to its use. A new government was elected in 2024 which promised to address this gap, but at the time of writing is yet to do so. What should the UK do next? The government faces competing objectives: harnessing AI for economic growth and better public services while mitigating risk. In light of these, we propose establishing a flexible, principles-based regulator to oversee the most advanced AI development, defensive measures against risks from AI-enabled biological design tools, and argue that more technical work is needed to understand how to respond to AI-generated misinformation. We argue for updated legal frameworks on copyright, discrimination, and AI agents, and that regulators will have a limited but important role if AI substantially disrupts labour markets. If the UK gets AI regulation right, it could demonstrate how democratic societies can harness AI's benefits while managing its risks.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 172 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Jul 2025.
Builds on
20 of 172 references.
References · 20
- 2023Model evaluation for extreme riskscited by 177
- 2024The Ethics of Advanced AI Assistantscited by 107
- 2023Frontier AI Regulation: Managing Emerging Risks to Public Safetycited by 98
- 2024Teams of LLM Agents can Exploit Zero-Day Vulnerabilitiescited by 95
- 2025Authenticated Delegation and Authorized AI Agentscited by 65
- 2024xTrimoPGLM: Unified 100B-Scale Pre-trained Transformer for Deciphering the Language of Proteincited by 50
- 2025Infrastructure for AI Agentscited by 41
- 2023Towards best practices in AGI safety and governance: A survey of expert opinioncited by 27
- 2024IDs for AI Systemscited by 19
- 2022The Brussels Effect and Artificial Intelligence: How EU regulation will impact the global AI marketcited by 18
- 2024On the Limitations of Compute Thresholds as a Governance Strategycited by 18
- 2023Protecting Society from AI Misuse: When are Restrictions on Capabilities Warranted?cited by 16
8 more
- 2024Training Compute Thresholds: Features and Functions in AI Regulationcited by 14
- 2024Scenarios for the Transition to AGIcited by 13
- 2024Societal Adaptation to Advanced AIcited by 10
- 2023Designing Fiduciary Artificial Intelligencecited by 8
- 2020AI loyalty: A New Paradigm for Aligning Stakeholder Interestscited by 7
- 2024From Principles to Rules: A Regulatory Approach for Frontier AIcited by 6
- 2023Towards Responsible Governance of Biological Design Toolscited by 5
- 2024Voice-Enabled AI Agents can Perform Common Scamscited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.