FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Britain AI Superpower Latest
Britain AI Superpower Latest
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *iquante OP Man 4 weeks ago
Birmingham |
Keir Starmer January 2025: “Britain will be one of the great AI Superpowers”.
Keir Starmer January 2026: “If X cannot control Grok - we will”!
April 2026: OpenAI pauses its Stargate UK AI infrastructure project due to high UK energy and regulatory costs.
Is it possible for businesses to build anything in the UK?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 4 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Keir Starmer January 2025: “Britain will be one of the great AI Superpowers”.
Keir Starmer January 2026: “If X cannot control Grok - we will”!
April 2026: OpenAI pauses its Stargate UK AI infrastructure project due to high UK energy and regulatory costs.
Is it possible for businesses to build anything in the UK?
"
Debt  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Cue the self professed "patriots" shitting on Britain again.
The UK already has world-class academic research on AI and is currently Europe's top AI investment hub. We are never going to go toe-to-toe with the US or China for LLMs, but when it comes to healthcare and fintech, being a world AI leader is a possibility.
Or we could put some more nylon flags on lamp posts and see how that pans out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Cue the self professed "patriots" shitting on Britain again.
The UK already has world-class academic research on AI and is currently Europe's top AI investment hub. We are never going to go toe-to-toe with the US or China for LLMs, but when it comes to healthcare and fintech, being a world AI leader is a possibility.
Or we could put some more nylon flags on lamp posts and see how that pans out."
Everything I’ve read/heard says we have a lot of AI startups that do really good things, and then get to a point where they need major investment, and that’s where the Americans step in and take these companies over and take them out of the UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
" Still waiting on Labours 1,500,000 new homes
Indeed 
Are you going to force developers to build homes they can't make money on?"
Better to create an economic environment where they can make money. And do it quick, if the greens get in, making money will probably become illegal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Cue the self professed "patriots" shitting on Britain again.
The UK already has world-class academic research on AI and is currently Europe's top AI investment hub. We are never going to go toe-to-toe with the US or China for LLMs, but when it comes to healthcare and fintech, being a world AI leader is a possibility.
Or we could put some more nylon flags on lamp posts and see how that pans out.
Everything I’ve read/heard says we have a lot of AI startups that do really good things, and then get to a point where they need major investment, and that’s where the Americans step in and take these companies over and take them out of the UK."
Exactly.
Brains alone do not build an industry - brains can be bought. There needs to be a compelling economic, regulatory and infrastructure environment for viable businesses to thrive and grow. The UK struggles in that regard. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Still waiting on Labours 1,500,000 new homes"
"Are you going to force developers to build homes they can't make money on?"
Seems rather foolish of Labour to promise 1.5m new homes if they know that developers won't build them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Still waiting on Labours 1,500,000 new homes
Indeed
Are you going to force developers to build homes they can't make money on?
Better to create an economic environment where they can make money. And do it quick, if the greens get in, making money will probably become illegal "
I don't think you really understand what government does. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The EU already passed the "AI act" even before the tech experts have figured out how the technology is going to evolve and what it's capable of. If UK decides to follow the them in these regulations, we can forget about being anywhere close to an AI superpower. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *apybarasCouple 4 weeks ago
High Lighthouse |
" Still waiting on Labours 1,500,000 new homes
Indeed
Are you going to force developers to build homes they can't make money on?"
Why is it reliant on developers.
It would be much better for Government to spend into the economy, and build the houses. Probably best done through councils, and put that housing stock back into public hands. Breaking the spiralling renting costs at the same time...
Similar for the energy bills that business/industry/joe public can't afford. Nationalise our services back, and those problems go away.
We don't need energy, water (and for that matter health or education) being driven by "markets" these are the basics of our society, keeping them out of the reach of greedy shareholders and VCs seems a no brainer to me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The EU already passed the "AI act" even before the tech experts have figured out how the technology is going to evolve and what it's capable of. If UK decides to follow the them in these regulations, we can forget about being anywhere close to an AI superpower. "
.
Agreed. But letting the Tech Bros do whatever they want also isn't the answer. Consider how light touch the US regulation is - and how loudly the Bros squeal already. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The EU already passed the "AI act" even before the tech experts have figured out how the technology is going to evolve and what it's capable of. If UK decides to follow the them in these regulations, we can forget about being anywhere close to an AI superpower. .
Agreed. But letting the Tech Bros do whatever they want also isn't the answer. Consider how light touch the US regulation is - and how loudly the Bros squeal already."
There is a middle ground between the corporate anarchy in the US and brain-dead nonsensical regulations of the EU. I hoped that with Brexit, we could reach that middle ground. The politicians seem to be dragging their heels on this. We are still seeing those lame cookie consent pop ups. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lan157Man 4 weeks ago
a village near Haywards Heath in East Sussex |
" Still waiting on Labours 1,500,000 new homes
Indeed
Are you going to force developers to build homes they can't make money on?
Why is it reliant on developers.
It would be much better for Government to spend into the economy, and build the houses. Probably best done through councils, and put that housing stock back into public hands. Breaking the spiralling renting costs at the same time...
Similar for the energy bills that business/industry/joe public can't afford. Nationalise our services back, and those problems go away.
We don't need energy, water (and for that matter health or education) being driven by "markets" these are the basics of our society, keeping them out of the reach of greedy shareholders and VCs seems a no brainer to me."
I am old enough to have been around when the move to privatise was happening and remember the rationale which indeed is flawed .Part of the problem then was industrial action by unions was a constant thorn in the side . Privatisation was meant to bring competition from different providers who brought capital investment and expertise . Instead the individual new share holders sold out to foreign investors who don't see a public duty just a dividend stream to themselves . They geared up with loan capital not new share capital and created an interest cost to the businesses . They failed to maintain the infrastructure in many cases . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ydaz70Man 4 weeks ago
Rotherham /newquay |
" Still waiting on Labours 1,500,000 new homes
Indeed
Are you going to force developers to build homes they can't make money on?"
why can't they make money maybe time to drop there 400% margin |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
" Still waiting on Labours 1,500,000 new homes
Are you going to force developers to build homes they can't make money on?
Seems rather foolish of Labour to promise 1.5m new homes if they know that developers won't build them."
Indeed ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
"The EU already passed the "AI act" even before the tech experts have figured out how the technology is going to evolve and what it's capable of. If UK decides to follow the them in these regulations, we can forget about being anywhere close to an AI superpower. "
US and China Innovate
Europe regulates
Extraordinary that the UK would choose the wrong path. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The AI is likely to create some substantial losers. Do we want them here, as I fear that's what we'd be more likely to get, than any that will be the winners.
Having our energy and water consumed by massive data centres isn't probably a good thing for us. I don't trust the water companies to be improving their resources much, just to provide for current demand and higher quality. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Still waiting on Labours 1,500,000 new homes
Indeed
Are you going to force developers to build homes they can't make money on?
Why is it reliant on developers.
It would be much better for Government to spend into the economy, and build the houses. Probably best done through councils, and put that housing stock back into public hands. Breaking the spiralling renting costs at the same time...
Similar for the energy bills that business/industry/joe public can't afford. Nationalise our services back, and those problems go away.
We don't need energy, water (and for that matter health or education) being driven by "markets" these are the basics of our society, keeping them out of the reach of greedy shareholders and VCs seems a no brainer to me."
how they gona build them? The trades wont do it when they can earn more money in the private sector |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *apybarasCouple 4 weeks ago
High Lighthouse |
" Still waiting on Labours 1,500,000 new homes
Indeed
Are you going to force developers to build homes they can't make money on?
Why is it reliant on developers.
It would be much better for Government to spend into the economy, and build the houses. Probably best done through councils, and put that housing stock back into public hands. Breaking the spiralling renting costs at the same time...
Similar for the energy bills that business/industry/joe public can't afford. Nationalise our services back, and those problems go away.
We don't need energy, water (and for that matter health or education) being driven by "markets" these are the basics of our society, keeping them out of the reach of greedy shareholders and VCs seems a no brainer to me.how they gona build them? The trades wont do it when they can earn more money in the private sector
"
Would they though?
Why would a council pay significantly less to a tradesman than a private developer? Employment is a marketplace and joining a union gives you even more negotiation power.
Also, if this became the norm (as it was in the past), there would be opportunities for full-time employment for these people, with security and career progression if they wanted. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The EU already passed the "AI act" even before the tech experts have figured out how the technology is going to evolve and what it's capable of. If UK decides to follow the them in these regulations, we can forget about being anywhere close to an AI superpower.
US and China Innovate
Europe regulates
Extraordinary that the UK would choose the wrong path."
You can see that attitude even in this thread. Every time there is a problem, the solution is always "Why don't we nationalise this?" or "why don't we tax those people?". You rarely see people coming up technically innovative solutions or solutions that will promote such innovation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
" Still waiting on Labours 1,500,000 new homes
Indeed
Are you going to force developers to build homes they can't make money on?"
Housing demand has never been higher yet apparently house builders can't make money building houses. Time to retrain perhaps? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *apybarasCouple 4 weeks ago
High Lighthouse |
"The EU already passed the "AI act" even before the tech experts have figured out how the technology is going to evolve and what it's capable of. If UK decides to follow the them in these regulations, we can forget about being anywhere close to an AI superpower.
US and China Innovate
Europe regulates
Extraordinary that the UK would choose the wrong path.
You can see that attitude even in this thread. Every time there is a problem, the solution is always "Why don't we nationalise this?" or "why don't we tax those people?". You rarely see people coming up technically innovative solutions or solutions that will promote such innovation."
So what innovative technical solution do you have for bringing down the price of energy, as this is the stated reason for them failing to build here?
Bearing in mind we sold all our oil/gas fields off 40 odd years ago. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
"Keir Starmer January 2025: “Britain will be one of the great AI Superpowers”.
Keir Starmer January 2026: “If X cannot control Grok - we will”!
April 2026: OpenAI pauses its Stargate UK AI infrastructure project due to high UK energy and regulatory costs.
Is it possible for businesses to build anything in the UK?
"
Perhaps we need AI to be usable, to mature. It's vastly off that right now. And twatters AI proves it. Pets controlled by their owner. Long way from intelligence |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *iquante OP Man 4 weeks ago
Birmingham |
"The EU already passed the "AI act" even before the tech experts have figured out how the technology is going to evolve and what it's capable of. If UK decides to follow the them in these regulations, we can forget about being anywhere close to an AI superpower.
US and China Innovate
Europe regulates
Extraordinary that the UK would choose the wrong path.
You can see that attitude even in this thread. Every time there is a problem, the solution is always "Why don't we nationalise this?" or "why don't we tax those people?". You rarely see people coming up technically innovative solutions or solutions that will promote such innovation.
So what innovative technical solution do you have for bringing down the price of energy, as this is the stated reason for them failing to build here?
Bearing in mind we sold all our oil/gas fields off 40 odd years ago."
“No Can Do Britain”. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The EU already passed the "AI act" even before the tech experts have figured out how the technology is going to evolve and what it's capable of. If UK decides to follow the them in these regulations, we can forget about being anywhere close to an AI superpower.
US and China Innovate
Europe regulates
Extraordinary that the UK would choose the wrong path.
You can see that attitude even in this thread. Every time there is a problem, the solution is always "Why don't we nationalise this?" or "why don't we tax those people?". You rarely see people coming up technically innovative solutions or solutions that will promote such innovation.
So what innovative technical solution do you have for bringing down the price of energy, as this is the stated reason for them failing to build here?
Bearing in mind we sold all our oil/gas fields off 40 odd years ago."
Why is the UK struggling to build nuclear reactors while the US, China and developing countries seem to do build them out with more success? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
"The EU already passed the "AI act" even before the tech experts have figured out how the technology is going to evolve and what it's capable of. If UK decides to follow the them in these regulations, we can forget about being anywhere close to an AI superpower.
US and China Innovate
Europe regulates
Extraordinary that the UK would choose the wrong path.
You can see that attitude even in this thread. Every time there is a problem, the solution is always "Why don't we nationalise this?" or "why don't we tax those people?". You rarely see people coming up technically innovative solutions or solutions that will promote such innovation.
So what innovative technical solution do you have for bringing down the price of energy, as this is the stated reason for them failing to build here?
Bearing in mind we sold all our oil/gas fields off 40 odd years ago.
Why is the UK struggling to build nuclear reactors while the US, China and developing countries seem to do build them out with more success?"
Rolls Royce are at the forefront of innovation in small scale nuclear reactors but they cannot get them built here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Still waiting on Labours 1,500,000 new homes
Indeed
Are you going to force developers to build homes they can't make money on?
Housing demand has never been higher yet apparently house builders can't make money building houses. Time to retrain perhaps?"
Or refrain, perhaps.
Maybe time for builders and developers to start doing their bit towards discouraging population growth.
Shouldn't just be leaving it to people like me!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The EU already passed the "AI act" even before the tech experts have figured out how the technology is going to evolve and what it's capable of. If UK decides to follow the them in these regulations, we can forget about being anywhere close to an AI superpower.
US and China Innovate
Europe regulates
Extraordinary that the UK would choose the wrong path.
You can see that attitude even in this thread. Every time there is a problem, the solution is always "Why don't we nationalise this?" or "why don't we tax those people?". You rarely see people coming up technically innovative solutions or solutions that will promote such innovation.
So what innovative technical solution do you have for bringing down the price of energy, as this is the stated reason for them failing to build here?
Bearing in mind we sold all our oil/gas fields off 40 odd years ago.
Why is the UK struggling to build nuclear reactors while the US, China and developing countries seem to do build them out with more success?
Rolls Royce are at the forefront of innovation in small scale nuclear reactors but they cannot get them built here."
Exactly! I made some money investing in their stocks at the right time  But it looks like it will take forever to build them here. The approval process itself takes years
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
"
Another day, another Labour clusterfuck.
I recall someone pointing out lots of times the negative effect of foul and abusive language in the Politics threads but it seems to fall on deaf ears."
Fair comment H, I apologise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Another day, another Labour clusterfuck.
I recall someone pointing out lots of times the negative effect of foul and abusive language in the Politics threads but it seems to fall on deaf ears.
Fair comment H, I apologise."
No need, I don't agree with him anyway.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The EU already passed the "AI act" even before the tech experts have figured out how the technology is going to evolve and what it's capable of. If UK decides to follow the them in these regulations, we can forget about being anywhere close to an AI superpower. "
https://www.wired.com/story/openai-backs-bill-exempt-ai-firms-model-harm-lawsuits/
OpenAI Backs Bill That Would Limit Liability for AI-Enabled Mass Deaths or Financial Disasters
This is an interesting idea that is understandable, but scary. There should absolutely be accountability at a personal and corporate level, depending on whether the issue arises from flagrant disregard, wanton negligence or actual bad intentions, or an honest and unforeseeable consequence. But law shouldn't favour corporations excessively. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The EU already passed the "AI act" even before the tech experts have figured out how the technology is going to evolve and what it's capable of. If UK decides to follow the them in these regulations, we can forget about being anywhere close to an AI superpower.
https://www.wired.com/story/openai-backs-bill-exempt-ai-firms-model-harm-lawsuits/
OpenAI Backs Bill That Would Limit Liability for AI-Enabled Mass Deaths or Financial Disasters
This is an interesting idea that is understandable, but scary. There should absolutely be accountability at a personal and corporate level, depending on whether the issue arises from flagrant disregard, wanton negligence or actual bad intentions, or an honest and unforeseeable consequence. But law shouldn't favour corporations excessively."
It's an interesting legal situation. There are two different issues here.
Mistakes by AI- Modern AI's output isn't "deterministic" like a traditional software. While we know that certain models do very well statistically, it's close to impossible to find out when it goes wrong and in what ways it could go wrong. This means that any "harm" AI could have caused directly is mostly not intended by the company.
People using AI to commit crimes - Like learning to make bio weapons or doing an orchestrated attack on websites and banks.
I think the companies shouldn't be liable for the latter. The former is where it gets tricky. Companies must be made to invest more in safety, especially if AI is going to be used for critical purposes. But are fines whenever things go wrong is really the right way to go about it? I am not sure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It's an interesting legal situation. There are two different issues here.
Mistakes by AI- Modern AI's output isn't "deterministic" like a traditional software. While we know that certain models do very well statistically, it's close to impossible to find out when it goes wrong and in what ways it could go wrong. This means that any "harm" AI could have caused directly is mostly not intended by the company.
People using AI to commit crimes - Like learning to make bio weapons or doing an orchestrated attack on websites and banks.
I think the companies shouldn't be liable for the latter. The former is where it gets tricky. Companies must be made to invest more in safety, especially if AI is going to be used for critical purposes. But are fines whenever things go wrong is really the right way to go about it? I am not sure."
Fines are EU wet dreams. Liability for actual damages is the big one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 3 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"The EU already passed the "AI act" even before the tech experts have figured out how the technology is going to evolve and what it's capable of. If UK decides to follow the them in these regulations, we can forget about being anywhere close to an AI superpower.
https://www.wired.com/story/openai-backs-bill-exempt-ai-firms-model-harm-lawsuits/
OpenAI Backs Bill That Would Limit Liability for AI-Enabled Mass Deaths or Financial Disasters
This is an interesting idea that is understandable, but scary. There should absolutely be accountability at a personal and corporate level, depending on whether the issue arises from flagrant disregard, wanton negligence or actual bad intentions, or an honest and unforeseeable consequence. But law shouldn't favour corporations excessively.
It's an interesting legal situation. There are two different issues here.
Mistakes by AI- Modern AI's output isn't "deterministic" like a traditional software. While we know that certain models do very well statistically, it's close to impossible to find out when it goes wrong and in what ways it could go wrong. This means that any "harm" AI could have caused directly is mostly not intended by the company.
People using AI to commit crimes - Like learning to make bio weapons or doing an orchestrated attack on websites and banks.
I think the companies shouldn't be liable for the latter. The former is where it gets tricky. Companies must be made to invest more in safety, especially if AI is going to be used for critical purposes. But are fines whenever things go wrong is really the right way to go about it? I am not sure."
LLMs in the organisations I deal with are controlled both contractually and by design for specific outcomes. The contractual elements tend to lock the supplier into extensive testing, with high levels of human validation and design checks to prevent major issues occurring or going unnoticed. The irony is that companies designing and delivering these systems are using AI to produce their contractual terms, the mess it can produce is quite embarrassing at times but easily fixed, however time wasting.
The question of who is responsible for the data and information LLMs provide to the general public through a tool is key? This is no different from what we have today, the information being provided from a digital source that is already available. A simplistic view is LLMs of this nature are chatbots that pull data from digital sources and present it back in a more dynamic way than the 2D approach we have with google, when in reality the training is what allows the model to interpret requests and generate a response and that is where the haze comes from.
The use of these tools at a global level will start to become tailored towards sales and sponsors, this will drive the self policing and filtering of harmful data, far better than what is available today through standard web browsing.
One element that could be a concern is the same element that exists today, dark web type capabilities, the regulators in my opinion need to fully understand this as their priority. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
LLMs in the organisations I deal with are controlled both contractually and by design for specific outcomes. The contractual elements tend to lock the supplier into extensive testing, with high levels of human validation and design checks to prevent major issues occurring or going unnoticed. The irony is that companies designing and delivering these systems are using AI to produce their contractual terms, the mess it can produce is quite embarrassing at times but easily fixed, however time wasting.
The question of who is responsible for the data and information LLMs provide to the general public through a tool is key? This is no different from what we have today, the information being provided from a digital source that is already available. A simplistic view is LLMs of this nature are chatbots that pull data from digital sources and present it back in a more dynamic way than the 2D approach we have with google, when in reality the training is what allows the model to interpret requests and generate a response and that is where the haze comes from.
"
It can get tricky here as the tools could add augmented context to LLMs. So the LLM may return some bad results in spite of being trained properly if the tools mess up with the additional context. Not quite unsolvable tbf as you can enforce some filtration on the data LLMs receive in the additional context.
"
The use of these tools at a global level will start to become tailored towards sales and sponsors, this will drive the self policing and filtering of harmful data, far better than what is available today through standard web browsing.
One element that could be a concern is the same element that exists today, dark web type capabilities, the regulators in my opinion need to fully understand this as their priority."
Agreed 👍 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
