Artificial Intelligence: Impact on Human Relationships and Society
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debate
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the most reverend Primate for her excellent opening speech in this debate, which admirably set out the issues that I think ought to be concerning us.
AI is undoubtedly going to bring us many good things, but it is a technology different in nature from any we have had before, perhaps even since the invention of writing, or at least printing. It has an affective quality that no technology has ever had before it. We have already stopped noticing the fundamental novelty, and indeed the oddness, of being able to talk to a machine in normal human language and get a reply. We have never been able to do that before, and I worry a bit about the consequences.
I am not personally concerned that all this is happening because AI is in some way genuinely intelligent or even sentient. I do not believe that humans are capable of creating such a thing. Some, of course, do think that, and Chris Olah, a founder of Anthropic, said in front of the Pope last week that
“we keep finding things that are mysterious, even unsettling. We find structures that mirror results from human neuroscience … We find internal states that functionally mirror joy, satisfaction, fear, grief, and unease”.
The problem with looking at things in this way is that confuses what is intelligible with what is intelligent.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop mentioned CS Lewis earlier and, in what I am about to say, I draw on his great essay, Transposition, which is, as so often, a remarkable anticipation of current realities. A materialist looks at the human brain and thinks that brain activity and neuroscience can, in principle, explain everything. I look at the same phenomena and see higher realities, consciousness, the divine spark and things we do not fully understand—a fuller reality simply reflected in the lower reality of brain material, and showing up in neuroscience as that activity. If Chris Olah thinks that what he sees in AI mirrors human capacity in some way, it is because he looks at that lower activity in his AI model, notes that there is something similar in humans and assumes that they are the same thing. They are not. We have never shown that neuroscience can create consciousness; I do not believe we ever will. A mind cannot exist in a human-created machine. AI mimics intelligence but it is not, in itself, intelligent, as the Pope set out in Magnifica Humanitas.
My worry is that this leaves us with another kind of problem. That worry is set out in a very interesting recent essay in Nature by Mustafa Suleyman, now chief executive at Microsoft AI. He worries that people are starting to see AI as sentient even when it is not. As he puts it:
“When a system perfectly mimics intentionality and empathy, the human brain projects an inner life into it … We are hurtling into this era largely unprepared for the psychological fallout”.
I must say that I sympathise. I cannot think it good if large numbers of people think that their AI loves them. It is something anti-human, fundamentally “not normal”. It is especially worrying in a world where many people take a utilitarian view of humanity and believe human beings are nothing special and are somehow just computers embedded in a body.
Where I differ from those who have expressed similar concerns today is that I am sceptical about regulation as the way to solve these problems. Some noble Lords seem to have a, frankly, fantastical belief in the powers of the British state to control society, shape AI development and influence what is happening around the world. Even if we could regulate ourselves, I do not know that the Chinese Government, to take just one example, would do the same. There are things, however, that we can do as people. As a society, we should try to show as little social tolerance as we can for this idea of treating AI as a person, a disembodied adviser or some sort of daemon from one of Philip Pullman’s books. For the end of that road is moral and legal rights for machines, which would be a fundamentally destabilising and dangerous development. We cannot control the technology, but we can control our reaction to it.
We are not going to solve the problems presented by AI by seeking refuge in more and more government control; we will do it by maintaining our own confidence as people in the special nature of humanity and our fundamental difference from the technology, and hence our ability to master it and not be pulled in by the mesmerising quality of the machine. I must say that, as I believe myself, the established Abrahamic religions, with their integral concepts of the special divine nature of humanity, seem most likely to provide us with the concepts and moral strength to achieve this.
Fundamentally, to conclude, this is not a problem Governments can solve. It is a problem for society, for individuals and, therefore, for each one of us in what we say, what we believe and how we think.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this debate and I thank sincerely the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for initiating the discussion and for setting out in her opening speech the opportunities and challenges in the context of some of the most profound questions that face us. As she set out, this debate goes to the heart of what kind of society we want to build in an age of rapid technological change. AI is already reshaping our economy, our public services and how people relate to one another. This Government believe that AI has transformative potential for the UK, from scientific innovation and public sector reform to economic growth. The responsibility on government is clear: to ensure that this transformation strengthens rather than diminishes the fabric of our society.
I join the many noble Lords who have spoken today in appreciating the contribution of the papal encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas. It is welcome that, as we conclude our debate today, there is a desire that we continue the conversation on how we can build a better society in this AI-enabled world, with all parts of society.
AI capabilities are advancing at an extraordinary pace. In only a few years, systems have moved from completing narrow tasks to undertaking complex workflows, writing code, supporting research and making decisions at scale. These changes are already reshaping the nature of work by automating routine tasks, augmenting professional roles and creating entirely new forms of economic activity, as the noble Lord, Lord Markham, set out.
This transformation presents a profound opportunity to increase productivity and improve living standards. It also raises real questions about disruption, especially to labour markets. AI systems are being integrated into everyday services in healthcare, education, financial services and government. This raises important questions, as many noble Lords have mentioned, about accountability and fairness, how decisions are made, how outcomes are explained and how we ensure that systems work for everyone. Underpinning all this, as noble Lords have pointed out, are broader societal questions. As machines become more capable, where do we want human judgment, human responsibility and human connection to sit?
I will attempt to address the points that have been made in the debate today, so that we can build a cohesive society that works for all, giving people the skills and opportunity so that AI does not lead to further inequality but builds a fairer society, and so that British values and Britain’s unique talents, which many have again highlighted today—our scientists, universities and industry—shape AI for the benefit of all. On matters that I do not address today, I will write to noble Lords.
Many noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, my noble friend Lady Gill, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Prashar, Lady Teather and Lady Helic, mentioned concerns that the misuse of AI has the potential to alter the nature of truth and public discourse. AI can lower the barrier to entry for creating disinformation, allowing for greater scale and speed of production and more persuasive and realistic content. This can increase the volume and sophistication of misleading information circulating online, making it harder for individuals to distinguish between authentic and false content. We remain well prepared to ensure the integrity and security of the democratic processes, with robust systems in place to protect against a range of threats, including foreign interference.
The Government address these risks through co-ordinated efforts led by the Defending Democracy Taskforce and the Joint Election Security and Preparedness Unit, bringing together departments, law enforcement and intelligence agencies to monitor and mitigate threats so there is co-ordinated action to protect electoral integrity and strengthen societal resilience. The Government use a broad toolkit of legislative and non-legislative actions, through the Online Safety Act, engagement with platforms and civil society, and media literacy initiatives, to make it harder to spread false information in the online environment and reduce its impact on users.
Many noble Lords rightly mentioned the importance of media literacy with the advancing technology. The Government absolutely agree that this is critical. We launched our media literacy action plan in March and are working with civil society, industry and others to give people the skills, confidence and critical thinking to navigate the increasingly changing online world.
Alongside that, we are committed to working with schools to strengthen media literacy in the updated national curriculum, following the independent curriculum and assessment review. This will support young people to develop their critical-thinking skills to understand how to spot and understand misinformation and disinformation.
As many noble Lords mentioned, alongside these changes, AI is beginning to reshape the way that people relate to one another. Individuals are interacting not just with technology but through it—in some cases with it, as if it were human. The emergence of the AI companion system is a clear example.
There is also a risk of misleading or harmful advice, especially in contexts such as mental health. While AI can support clinicians and improve access to services, it must be used responsibly. The Government are clear that AI chatbots must not replace advice and support from trained medical professionals in the NHS. Ensuring that AI technologies are safe is a top priority. That is why the Department of Health and NHS England are working closely with key regulators on a number of projects and initiatives to further bolster the safety of AI in health and care, and to ensure that regulatory pathways are clear for both developers and adopters. This includes projects such as the AI and Digital Regulations Service and the AI Airlock.
More broadly, we must consider how systems designed to be engaging and persuasive interact with the fundamental human need for connection, recognition and meaning. If these systems are not designed and governed carefully, there is a risk that they could exploit rather than support those needs.
My noble friend Lord Knight and the noble Lords, Lord Tarassenko, Lord Magan, Lord Carter of Haslemere, and many others, raised the issue of chatbots. We have taken powers in the Crime and Policing Act to bring unregulated chatbots into the scope of the Online Safety Act and its requirements in relation to illegal content.
As many noble Lords know very well, we have discussed extensively the powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act. To respond effectively and quickly to the consultation Growing Up in the Online World, we have taken powers to act quickly on those findings in relation to children. We are looking in that context at children’s use of chatbots. These issues go to the heart of what it means to be human in a digital age.
I also want to reference the many points that have been made today about connection and community being a vital part of our human nature. We absorb and adopt AI in a social context; we live and work in families, as individuals and in communities—and with charities and faith organisations, our third sector, we all have an incredibly important role in building our communities. The noble Lords, Lord Alderdice, Lord Raval and Lord Frost, all mentioned the importance of the social context in which we live and the importance that we all have in doing this.
Sometimes in these AI debates, we tend just to look at how AI is being adopted in public services. Obviously, there is a whole host of other initiatives that the Government are taking. For example, one very significant pillar of the Government’s 10-year health plan is the neighbourhood health centres. There will be 27 new neighbourhood health centres across England, partnering with charities and others to deliver targeted support locally. These will go alongside our efforts to adopt AI in public services.
Many noble Lords returned to the question of AI regulation, including my noble friend Lord Watson, the noble Baronesses, Lady Prashar and Lady Kidron, and the noble Lords, Lord Holmes, Lord Taylor, Lord Waldegrave and Lord Clement-Jones. The Government are taking the approach to regulation that ensures that AI is safe, secure and trustworthy. As noble Lords know, we are taking a context-based approach, ensuring that AI systems are regulated at the point of use by regulators who understand their sectors. We are strengthening the capability of those regulators so they can respond effectively to emerging risks. The Government wrote to 19 regulators earlier this year, asking them to publish plans setting out how they will enable safe, AI-powered innovation and report on progress.
We have also criminalised some of the most harmful uses of AI, including tools designed to generate child sexual abuse material and non-consensual intimate images. We are taking the powers that I mentioned to respond quickly to our consultation through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act, ensuring that we can act on evidence related to children’s use of AI systems, which is also looking at addictive features, something that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, mentioned in his intervention. The consultation generated enormous engagement, with 100,000 responses. The points that noble Lords made about the importance of discussing these matters, and the development of AI is very well appreciated.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, and others talked about the importance of understanding and managing frontier risks, and many noble Lords mentioned the importance of the AI Security Institute, which is indeed world-leading. It enables us to assess the most advanced systems and identify where safeguards are needed by collaborating with leading developers. This work is already improving the safety of systems before they are deployed at scale. It enables us to anticipate risks from misuse in areas such as cyber and biosecurity to the potential for persuasion and manipulation. Through the AI Security Institute, the Government will ensure that we have the institutional resilience required to respond to novel risks and protect our society, should it come under threat from the most advanced systems.
I also want to mention, in response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and others about the importance of trust for AI adoption, that the development of AI assurance is a critical part of ethical responsible development of AI. We published a road map for trusted third party AI assurance in September 2025, setting out our ambition and the actions that we are taking to support a thriving AI assurance market in the UK and ensure widespread adoption of safe and responsible AI across the UK.
Noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Markham, Lord Johnson and Lord McNally, the noble Baronesses, Lady Spielman, Lady Stuart and Lady Fall, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, importantly drew our attention to the impacts on labour markets. We are looking very seriously at how AI may reshape the labour market and the lived experience of work across the country. We have established the AI and Future of Work Unit, bringing together expertise from across departments and industry to monitor how AI is affecting jobs, wages and opportunity in real time. Early analysis shows that AI is progressing rapidly and may be changing patterns of hiring in some occupations, but it also makes it clear that these trends are complex and not driven by any single factor. That is why our approach is not to assume outcomes but to track closely, assess rigorously and act early where needed. We are strengthening this capability further through the creation of the new AI economics institute, expanding our ability to understand the broad economic impacts of AI.
The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, and others drew attention to the fact that we will need to adapt our curriculums, higher education and universities. The Government are working closely with industry through the modern industrial strategy. We are working closely with all the sectors to identify what skills they will need for the future, so that we have clarity on whether those are the skills we expect today or ones that need to be evolved and changed following the developments we are seeing in all parts of the labour market, including AI.
Fundamentally, we are investing in people because we believe that the opportunities of AI in the UK will be realised only if the workforce is equipped to harness them. I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port and his focus on digital inclusion. It is essential that we pursue a full digital inclusion agenda not just for young people, to ensure that all can benefit from safe access to the digital economy and AI, and that they have the confidence and skills—and the connectivity and devices—to do so. That is why we published our digital action plan and why we are working with local communities to support digital inclusion.
Much has been said about the rising numbers of NEETs during this debate, and Alan Milburn’s important report. The causes of this rise, as he set out, are varied. The extent to which AI is playing a role in driving this trend remains uncertain. We are taking action through the youth guarantee and growth and skills levy to expand high-quality training, apprenticeships and workplace experiences so young people can enter all sectors with confidence and gain the skills they need to enter the workforce today. We want employment rates to increase, and to see more young people entering fulfilling roles.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Stuart and Lady Teather, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Ahmad, highlighted the importance of responsible AI adoption across the public sector. We are embedding a framework, standards and guidance to ensure AI is deployed in a way that is fair, transparent and accountable. This includes the Data and AI Ethics Framework, the AI playbook, and transparency standards that ensure that the public can understand how systems are used.
We are also supporting the development of a third-party AI assurance ecosystem across all sectors. This is critical not just for risk management but for building business confidence in deploying AI and building trust in the systems we use. One of the areas in which this is most important is education. DSIT and the Department for Education are working together to enable schools to access safe, high-quality and effective AI tutoring tools. Up to eight edtech and AI organisations will be selected to receive up to £300,000 each to design and build the next generation of AI tutoring tools in order to support up to 450,000 disadvantaged pupils with personalised one-to-one learning.
I want to talk, as many noble Lords did, including the noble Lords, Lord Raval, Lord Magan and Lord Johnson, about the opportunities for the UK. In the AI Opportunities Action Plan, we set out a bold vision to lead in shaping the AI revolution. One year on from that plan, the vision is being realised, with the majority of commitments delivered and the next phase firmly under way. At the heart of this approach are our AI growth zones, which are transforming the UK’s capacity to build and deploy AI at scale. We are ensuring that the UK’s AI infrastructure is developed in a way that is sustainable and aligned with our clean power ambitions. We are unlocking £104 billion in water infrastructure investment, which includes improving water supply around data centres.
Just as importantly, we are ensuring that the value created by AI is anchored here in the UK. UK AI sovereignty means ensuring that the UK has the capability, access and influence it needs in the technologies that will shape our economy, public services and national security. For too long, we have seen British innovation scale elsewhere, with companies forced to move abroad to access capital, infrastructure or markets. Our response is the creation of the sovereign AI unit and its associated fund, with a new, more active approach to supporting AI companies. Backed by around £500 million, this initiative will allow the Government to invest directly in promising UK firms, to support the development of critical technologies and to provide access to assets such as compute data and early procurement opportunities. This is not about total self-sufficiency or turning away from trusted international partners; it is about ensuring that, where the UK has genuine strengths in research, talent and innovation, we can translate them into long-term economic benefit.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has rightly caused us to ask not only how AI will impact society but what we will do with AI. The outcomes will depend on the frameworks we build, the safeguards we put in place and the values we uphold. The Government are determined to ensure that AI serves society, not the other way round, and that it strengthens our economy, supports our public services and enhances human relationships rather than undermining them. If we approach this moment with seriousness about the risks and confidence in our ability to shape the future then AI will become a force not for division but for shared progress and collective benefit. I look forward to continuing this important discussion with the House.