Sifted asked me to weigh in after the UK government declined to sign the 60-nation Paris declaration on inclusive and sustainable AI development, and I ended up in the more cautious camp of a debate that split British tech opinion right down the middle.
Why the UK walked away from the declaration
The government's stated reason for not signing was that the declaration didn't go far enough on national security provisions. That's a defensible position on its own terms, and it's one several tech leaders in Sifted's piece welcomed. Hiro Capital's Cherry Freeman dismissed the declaration as a vague values checklist, arguing entrepreneurs need clarity rather than diplomatic gestures. DoNotPay's Josh Browder went further, framing AI safety commitments generally as a brake on progress and arguing the real safety strategy is making sure allied labs stay ahead in the global race.
Why I think "just follow the US" is the wrong instinct
My concern, which Sifted quoted directly, is that if the UK government is simply following the lead of the US, it may well backfire. The US has the leverage to walk away from multilateral AI commitments because of its scale and market power. The UK doesn't have that same leverage, and it can't afford to alienate the international partners and companies it will need cooperation from to make Keir Starmer's ambition of deeply embedding AI across the UK economy actually work. Declining to sign a flawed declaration is one thing, doing it purely to mirror Washington is another.
The middle ground other voices in the piece were pointing to
I wasn't alone in wanting more nuance than "sign" or "snub." Applied's Khyati Sundaram made a point I agree with, that the UK can sympathise with not wanting to commit to a vague, sweeping declaration, but it still owes the market a clearer roadmap than silence. Refusing to sign isn't a strategy on its own, it only works if it's followed by the UK setting out what it will commit to instead.
Read the full piece on Sifted.