At the recent Artificial Intelligence (AI) Action Summit in Paris, the UK and the United States refused to sign an international declaration advocating for “inclusive and sustainable” AI development.
60 Other Nations Signed It
With 60 other nations (including China, France, India, and Canada) endorsing the agreement, the absence of two major AI powerhouses has ignited some debate over regulation, governance, and the global AI market’s future.
The Paris AI Summit and The Declaration
The AI Action Summit, held on 10–11 February, brought together representatives from over 100 countries to essentially discuss AI’s trajectory and the need for ethical, transparent, and sustainable frameworks. The summit concluded with a declaration designed to guide AI development responsibly. The key principles of this declaration include:
– Openness and inclusivity. Ensuring AI development is accessible and equitable across different nations and communities.
– Ethical standards. Establishing guidelines that uphold human rights and prevent AI misuse.
– Transparency. Mandating clear AI decision-making processes and accountability.
– Safety and security. Addressing risks related to AI safety, cybersecurity and misinformation.
– Sustainability. Recognising the growing energy demands of AI and the need to mitigate its environmental impact.
The declaration emphasised the importance of global cooperation to prevent market monopolisation, reduce digital divides, and ensure AI benefits humanity as a whole. However, despite broad support, both the US and UK opted out of signing.
A Hands-Off Approach to Regulation For The US
US Vice President JD Vance delivered a fairly candid speech at the summit (his first major speech overseas in government), making clear that the Trump administration favours minimal AI regulation. For example, Vance warned that “Excessive regulation of the AI sector could kill a transformative industry just as it’s taking off”. He also criticised Europe’s approach, particularly the EU’s stringent AI Act and other regulatory frameworks like the Digital Services Act (DSA) and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), arguing that they create “endless legal compliance costs” for companies.
Vance’s remarks positioned the US as a clear advocate for innovation over restrictive oversight, stating, “We need international regulatory regimes that foster the creation of AI technology rather than strangle it.” He also expressed concerns that content moderation could lead to “authoritarian censorship,” a nod to the ongoing debates over misinformation and AI’s role in shaping public discourse.
Also, Vance (more subtly) warned against international partnerships with “authoritarian” nations (i.e. basically implying China) by stating that working with such regimes risked “chaining your nation to an authoritarian master that seeks to infiltrate, dig in, and seize your information infrastructure.” Some critics of Trump’s government in the US may have found this remark to be ironic given Trump’s past praise for authoritarian leaders and his administration’s own controversies regarding misinformation, media control, and political influence over tech and AI regulation.
Concern
US Vice President JD Vance’s speech at the Paris AI Action Summit was met with a mix of concern and criticism from European leaders. Vance’s strong stance against European AI regulations and his emphasis on an “America First” approach to AI development seemed to highlight quite a significant policy divergence between the US and its European allies. French President Emmanuel Macron and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen responded by advocating for a balanced approach that fosters innovation while ensuring ethical standards, underscoring the contrasting perspectives on AI governance.
Why Didn’t The UK Sign?
The UK government’s stated reasons for not signing the declaration were its concerns over national security and AI governance. The UK was represented at the AI Action Summit in Paris by Tech Secretary Peter Kyle, with Prime Minister Keir Starmer opting not to attend. On the decision not to sign the summit’s AI declaration, a spokesperson for Starmer said the UK would “only ever sign up to initiatives that are in the UK’s national interest.” While the government agreed with much of the declaration, they argued it lacked practical clarity on global governance and failed to sufficiently address national security concerns.
A Downing Street spokesperson has also been reported as saying, “We felt the declaration didn’t provide enough practical clarity on global governance, nor sufficiently address harder questions around national security and the challenge AI poses to it.”
While the UK has previously championed AI safety, hosting the first-ever AI Safety Summit in November 2023, critics have argued that its refusal to sign the Paris declaration could now undermine its credibility as a leader in ethical AI development. For example, Andrew Dudfield, head of AI at fact-checking organisation Full Fact, has warned, “By refusing to sign today’s international AI Action Statement, the UK Government risks undercutting its hard-won credibility as a world leader for safe, ethical, and trustworthy AI innovation.”
Are The Real Reasons For Not Signing Geopolitical?
All that said, some analysts have argued that economic and geopolitical factors (rather than concerns about governance) may actually be the driving forces behind the US and UK’s decision. For example, by not signing the declaration, both countries retain the freedom to shape AI policy on their own terms, thereby potentially allowing domestic companies to operate with fewer regulatory constraints and gain a competitive edge in AI markets.
The decision may also be seen as aligning with broader economic policies. For example, the Trump administration has pledged significant investment in AI infrastructure, including a $500 billion private sector initiative to enhance US AI capabilities. Meanwhile, UK AI industry leaders, such as UKAI (a trade body representing AI businesses), have cautiously welcomed the government’s stance, arguing that AI’s energy demands must be balanced with environmental responsibilities.
However, some political voices in the UK have suggested that the UK has little room for manoeuvre but to align with the US, e.g. for fear of losing engagement from major US AI firms if it adopted a restrictive approach.
The Implications for AI in the US and UK
The refusal to sign the Paris declaration could have some serious effects on the AI landscape in both countries. These could include, for example:
– Regulatory divergence. The US and UK are likely to diverge further from the EU’s AI regulatory approach, which could create complexities for companies operating in multiple jurisdictions.
– Market positioning. AI firms in these countries may benefit from a less regulated environment, attracting more investment and talent.
– Global cooperation. The lack of a unified stance could complicate international efforts to set AI standards, leading to regulatory fragmentation.
– Public perception and trust. Concerns over AI safety and misinformation could be exacerbated, potentially undermining public trust in AI systems developed in more lightly regulated markets.
The Possible Impact on the AI Market and Business Users
For businesses trying to get the benefits of leveraging AI, these developments could signal both opportunities and challenges, such as:
– Regulatory uncertainty. Companies may need to navigate a fragmented regulatory landscape, balancing compliance in stricter jurisdictions like the EU with more flexible environments in the US and UK.
– Competitive advantage. Firms operating in the US and UK may see accelerated innovation and reduced compliance costs, while those in heavily regulated regions may struggle to keep pace.
– Investment trends. Investors might favour jurisdictions with fewer regulatory barriers, shifting funding patterns in the AI sector.
A Growing Divide
The refusal of the UK and US to sign the Paris AI declaration essentially highlights a growing global divide over AI regulation. For example, while Europe and other signatories are pushing for stringent oversight to ensure ethical and sustainable AI, the US and UK appear to be prioritising market-driven approaches that foster innovation with fewer constraints. As AI continues to shape industries and societies, this divergence in policy is likely to significantly influence the future of AI governance, business strategy, and global competitiveness.
What Does This Mean For Your Business?
The decision by the UK and US to abstain from signing the Paris AI declaration reveals the fundamental and growing divergence in global AI governance. While Europe and other signatories advocate for regulatory frameworks designed to ensure ethical, transparent, and sustainable AI development, the UK and US are instead opting for a more market-driven approach. This contrast highlights deeper geopolitical and economic considerations, as both nations seek to maintain a competitive edge in the rapidly evolving AI sector.
Companies operating in the US and UK may benefit from reduced compliance burdens and faster innovation cycles, but they also risk regulatory uncertainty when engaging with more tightly controlled markets such as the EU. Meanwhile, concerns over AI safety, misinformation, and ethical considerations could influence public trust, potentially shaping consumer and business adoption patterns in the years ahead.
Beyond immediate market implications, the lack of a unified international stance raises broader questions about the future of AI governance. The absence of the UK and US from the Paris declaration may complicate global efforts to establish common AI standards, increasing the likelihood of regulatory fragmentation. This, in turn, could lead to inconsistencies in AI oversight, making it more challenging to address issues such as bias, cybersecurity risks, and the environmental impact of AI systems on a global scale.
That said, the refusal to sign the declaration does not mean the UK and US are simply abandoning AI regulation altogether; rather, both countries will continue to shape policy on their own terms. However, their decision does signal a clear preference for maintaining regulatory flexibility, even at the cost of global consensus. Whether this approach actually fosters long-term innovation or leads to unintended risks remains to be seen, but what is certain is that AI governance is now a defining battleground in the race for technological leadership. The coming years will likely reveal whether a hands-off approach delivers the promised benefits, or whether the cautionary stance of other nations proves to be the wiser path.
