Artificial Intelligence: Impact on Human Relationships and Society

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Friday 5th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the powerful opening speech by the most reverend Primate contained much wisdom. For me, however, perhaps the main takeaway will be a call for AI developers to answer the fundamental question: where are we going? The potential impact of artificial intelligence on human relationships and society is vast and far-reaching; it touches nearly every aspect of our lives, from how we work and learn to how we connect with one another.

On the potential impact of AI in society, several noble Lords have referenced Geoffrey Hinton, the godfather of AI. He has estimated that there is a 10% to 20% likelihood of AI leading to human extinction within a few decades. Earlier this year, a prominent safety expert, Mrinank Sharma, quit his job at Anthropic with the warning:

“The world is in peril”.


These are people who know what they are talking about when it comes to AI, and if they are worried, should not we lesser beings be worried as well?

The reason that experts are so concerned lies in how modern AI systems are developed: in a very real sense, they are grown rather than built. Systems are being created whose behaviour cannot be reliably anticipated, thereby producing actions humans may not be able to control. This challenge becomes even more serious as many AI companies are now openly pursuing the creation of superintelligent AI. These are systems that eclipse human performance across all cognitive tasks. If a system more intelligent than any human were to act in ways at odds with human values—which is very likely—the consequences could be catastrophic. The problem of maintaining control over AI systems is not theoretical; it is already taking shape.

One of the major effects AI will have on humans is economic displacement. As AI systems become increasingly capable, the risk that human labour will be replaced on a significant scale grows ever more real. Jobs that once required years of training and experience may become automated in a matter of months. Entire industries could be transformed, leaving millions of people out of work and uncertain about their economic future. This is not just a technological issue; it is a social and economic challenge that demands urgent response. As the parent of a 14 year-old, it naturally causes me concern—as did the Milburn report, published last week.

Education is another area where the effects of AI are already being felt. A survey by the main teaching union, the NEU, earlier this year found that two-thirds of secondary school teachers think that pupils’ critical thinking ability has declined due to AI usage. Furthermore, half of schools have no policy on the use of AI, either by staff or students; even more concerning, two-thirds have no policy of its usage specifically for their students.

However, there are educational positives as well. The Open University has responded to some of the challenges it has encountered with AI by launching, in partnership with and funded by Microsoft, an AI learning hub and its free to use OpenLearn platform. That is a one-stop shop for AI knowledge and expertise. Rather than treating AI literacy as a bolt-on additional skill, the OU embeds it within broader intellectual engagement as higher education seeks to develop criticality, reflection and ethical reasoning.

While the human effects of relying on existing regulatory frameworks are also being felt at the consumer level, the Government have argued that existing laws and regulators are sufficient—but that argument is not supported by their approach to enforcement, I have to say. Recent interventions in competition, including the sacking of the Competition and Markets Authority’s chair and a strategic steer to the CMA prioritising the AI opportunities plan, have had a chilling effect on that regulator’s ability to support and protect UK businesses and consumers.

Meanwhile, progress in AI development continues to accelerate rapidly, outpacing government oversight and regulation, as public policy struggles to keep up. The AI oligarchs are themselves out of control, and this imbalance is surely dangerous. Despite this, no Government currently prohibit the development of superintelligent AI itself, but at least the EU has recognised the risks posed by advanced AI as matters of national and global security. I think what it has achieved, and what it is likely to achieve, is probably limited, but these risks should be treated with the same seriousness as other major threats in the past, such as pandemics or nuclear conflict.

To some extent, I find myself in the rather odd position of agreeing with a fair bit of what the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said, which is not usual. Although I believe that international co-operation is critical, I accept what he said about the difficulties that that poses. However, AI development does not respect national borders, and no single country can manage these risks alone. On the other hand, for superintelligent AI, we must have robust, proven methods to ensure it can be controlled safely. These decisions cannot be left solely to private companies or a small group of experts. The development of such powerful technologies affects all of humanity and therefore demands—as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, set out so persuasively— a democratic mandate. Wider society must have a say in how far we are willing to go and under what conditions—yet that, I fear, is not where we are going.