Matt Warman is a former Minister of State at the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and is MP for Boston and Skegness.
At a recent dinner in Parliament, a senior former minister mentioned, quite casually, that we’re probably now closer to a world war than we have been for a generation. Not a single one of the other MPs around a quite large table batted an eyelid – and not because they weren’t listening.
The truth is that there are already so-called hot wars in Ukraine and in Gaza and across other countries, and they are surrounded by a bigger series of cold wars that are already engulfing the West.
Technology is at the front line of those supposedly chilly battles. But such is its connection to every aspect of our lives that the distinction between bloody wars and bloodless ones is less than ever it was. For that reason alone, governments need to work more closely with allies, and to be utterly robust in response.
In 15 years covering technology for the Daily Telegraph, I saw the internet get into everything; from the iPhone and Kindle to our boilers and cars, it is now everywhere. As a result, a single hack now poses ever greater threat, disinformation goes around the world before the truth has even got its bytes on, and a Chinese butterfly flapping its wings near Taiwan might cause an earthquake in the West.
What though can be done about it? Business and individuals must be more alert and more sceptical than ever, but ultimately cyber security is increasingly something that truly is on the scale that only governments can do it.
Protecting citizens means making sure that Britain continues to punch above our weight in the development of AI; we must be more sceptical of those who might want to buy or invest in firms whose technology may be of great influence in the future. The current, laudable mantra is that, as the Government puts it:
“[We] follow a ‘small garden, high fence’ approach: safeguarding the UK against the small number of deals that could be harmful to our security whilst leaving the vast majority of transactions unaffected.”
The simple fact is that the garden is only going to grow, and the what ifs constantly seek to lower the height of the fence. Protectionism will be the enemy of innovation, but it is in a constant state of tension with the fact that it might be the friend, to some extent, of national security.
We should never forget that openness is often in fact itself a strength; however, it will require ever-greater bravery for politicians to hold onto it. Indeed, as NATO itself has said:
“The continued ability of the Alliance to deter and defend against any potential adversary and to respond effectively to emerging crises will hinge on its ability to maintain its technological edge”.
Rishi Sunak’s AI safety summit last year, hosted by the UK, is the first and in some senses so far only global attempt to seize that nettle. It brought together governments, scientists, and academics to discuss how we can seize the opportunities of the industry whilst protecting states and the public from unintended consequences and risks.
That conversation must continue. The challenge will be to have it fast enough to make a difference, but with enough care and consideration that it doesn’t inadvertently handicap the potential good this powerful new technology can deliver.
