UK Must Not Depend on Foreign AI, Turing Institute Head Says

The UK must not depend on foreign AI systems that could be restricted or switched off, George Williamson, head of the Alan Turing Institute, said. He called for stronger domestic capability as artificial intelligence becomes more embedded in critical services. Williamson said political and commercial pressures could leave the country without access when it needs it.

Williamson said the country needs more control over technology used in areas including defence, national security, critical infrastructure and healthcare. He described national resilience as a focus for the institute, the UK’s leading AI research body, under new leadership after the government demanded a strategic shift. The shift came after the government, its main source of funding, sought a change in priorities.

Why the UK Must Not Rely on Foreign AI

“As AI becomes more embedded in critical services, in domains like defence, national security, critical infrastructure and healthcare we shouldn’t depend solely on systems we can’t inspect or control, or that could be restricted or even switched off,” Williamson said.

He pointed to recent limits on access to overseas technology. In the source interview, Williamson discussed UK AI dependence and the value of having technology the country can inspect and control. In June, Washington temporarily blocked the release outside the US of Anthropic’s latest models. Williamson also referred to reports that leading AI labs had been asked to withhold models from UK testing until they had been examined by the US counterpart to the UK’s AI Security Institute.

“We’ve seen now that both political and commercial pressures mean we may not have access [to AI] in all the circumstances when we want it,” he said. “That is not a place where a nation wants to be.” He said there were circumstances in which it would be useful for the UK to have technology it did not need another party’s permission to use.

Building National Resilience

Williamson said the institute would work on securing critical systems against disruption, countering threats from AI and helping shape strategic AI capability for the UK. He said its work could include public-interest uses such as weather forecasting and farming, as well as monitoring disinformation.

“We are facing a more adversarial world, more frequent shocks to our critical infrastructure and now powerful AI amplifying these threats,” Williamson said. He described resilience as a frame for the institute’s work across threats and opportunities, including climate.

The institute could support nationally owned intellectual property or smaller models made available to startups, he said. Williamson said the UK and the institute probably could not match major AI labs’ financial resources, but added: “We can be ambitious here without trying to copy what frontier labs are doing.”

The discussion also touches on how financial organizations assign responsibility for AI strategy. Wealth managers have begun installing dedicated AI leaders, and a separate report examines technology choices facing wealth firms. Another article covers a wealth executive taking a role in AI adoption at Humanity Labs.

Public Scrutiny and the Institute’s Role

Williamson said the institute could act as an objective partner to government and the public as they assess AI concerns. He questioned the use of precise percentages to describe existential risks, saying he had not seen convincing evidence explaining how some figures had been reached.

He also said the institute’s national-resilience focus could include environmental work. The government had previously sought to move its main focus toward defence and security, but Williamson said climate was also a national-security issue.

He said the institute would help the UK shape AI in line with its values and maintain access to technologies it wants to use. That work, he said, includes developing domestic capability while applying research to critical systems and public needs.