🤖 Developing AI Capacity and Expertise in UK Defence

• The Defence Committee focused on the development of AI in UK defence, highlighting the need for the MOD to turn its rhetoric into tangible action.
• AI is increasingly mentioned in defence documents and has been integrated into various defence units since 2018, but there is a “say-do gap” where the MOD struggles to outline concrete steps to achieve AI goals.
• The Committee recommended that the MOD should aim to be “AI-native” instead of “AI-ready”, integrating AI as a core component across all defence activities.
• The UK’s defence AI sector is young and underdeveloped, with potential for growth if the MOD can engage more effectively with SMEs and less traditional companies.
• The MOD’s current procurement models are seen as outdated for the fast-evolving tech environment, and more flexibility and openness are needed to involve smaller, innovative companies.
• Digital infrastructure, essential for AI development, is lagging, and the MOD needs to improve data collection, labelling, and sharing.
• There is a lack of clear leadership and responsibility within the MOD’s AI initiatives, contributing to fragmentation and confusion.
• AI’s transformative potential in defence was underlined by examples from Ukraine, emphasizing the urgency for the UK to catch up with allies and adversaries.
• The Committee acknowledged the ethical considerations addressed by the House of Lords, emphasizing the need for compliance with international law and the inclusion of human oversight in AI applications.
• The report received praise from various MPs for its thoroughness and the urgency it places on developing a robust AI strategy in defence.

The transcript shows a generally cooperative and focused discussion on the topic of developing AI capacity in UK Defence. There are no instances of overt disagreement or conflict among the participants. Members from different parties, including Labour and Conservative, engage constructively, with the shadow Minister, James Cartlidge, even complimenting the report as ‘excellent’ and expressing gratitude for the recognition of his previous work. The exchanges largely involve members seeking clarification and further details on specific points, rather than challenging or opposing the content of the report. However, there are minor divergences in emphasis, such as when Richard Foord raises concerns about the ethical and legal considerations of AI development, indicating a slight disagreement with the Committee’s focus. These points of divergence are minor and handled with mutual respect, not escalating to significant disagreements. Therefore, while there is a general consensus and a collaborative tone, the presence of some minor points of divergence justifies a rating of 2 for disagreement.