Matthew Lynn has an article in The Telegraph: Our first big Brexit economic win is within grasp. The sub-title is: Britain can capitalise on the EU's caution if it can resist being drawn into its AI regulatory orbit. The piece is about Artificial Intelligence, which Lynn obviously doesn’t understand as he writes about Britain becoming “a hub for entrepreneurship and investment in what could become one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy.” Needless to say with Mr. Lynn the word ‘could’ is taking a lot of the weight.
It is, to put it mildly, a load of cobblers.
In the article he writes about EU rules getting in the way of:
"Even simple tasks like recruitment or insurance, where there is lots of potential for AI to speed up processing and cut costs, could require companies to log activity and submit detailed reports on the system to a new breed of regulator."
I think he’s conflating AI with Robotic Process Automation (RPA) which is already used in insurance and simply uses software to carry out repetitive tasks like checking the electoral register or the DVLA, industry databases, and so on to provide quotations. There are already very big, well-established companies (American naturally) doing this.
It’s hard to see what AI could add to the process. Lynn says, Britain, "has gone rogue with a government white paper that favours a hands-off approach with no plans to introduce new legislation. That could be bad news for the rest of Europe." The UK is "taking a pro-innovation, pro-experimentation approach."
Like a lot of Brexiteers, Lynn seems to think regulation, or the absence of it, is a prerequisite for innovation and progress. At the margin, it could make a difference but I doubt it. More important is the ability to see the long-term and the resources to invest a lot of money over extended periods with little or no return for years. This isn’t our forte let’s be honest.
He claims Britain already has the third largest AI ecosystem in the world, behind the US and China with £13.7 billion worth of investment into nearly 5,000 deals. That may be true, but it's not what it seems. A quick Google reveals the top ten global businesses leading AI Innovation in 2023. Not surprisingly, they're all American. I assume the US also has a lot more outside the top ten and this doesn't even count China.
We may be third but we are so far back it doesn't really matter. I suspect £13 billion is seen as chicken feed.
But leave that aside for the moment, because later on Newsnight, their economics editor Ben Chu presented a piece on Compound Semiconductor Technology (CST) where he describes an area around Newport in Wales as Britain’s Silicon Valley and a technology where the UK is a “genuine world-leader.”
It was however, all dashed when a few minutes later, Victoria Derbyshire interviewed Herman Hauser, Co-CEO of Amadeus Capital Partners, a big investor in this sort of kit. He was said to be the father of Britain’s tech sector. Hauser has apparently personally founded a lot of high-tech businesses and clearly knows the industry.
She put to him the Chancellor’s recently announced plan to make Britain the next Silicon Valley and asked what the chances were?
“Zero,” was the instant reply.
He explained that Britain was “a minnow” in semiconductor technology “and always will be.”
He talked of “technology sovereignty” which is the ability to do your own thing unimpeded and said only the USA, China, and the EU have a chance to do it. Britain didn’t.
“Brexit in a way was the biggest loss of sovereignty since 1066," he said.
This is the reality of both AI and CST. We are only kidding ourselves that we can once again become the workshop of the world. That ship sailed years ago and isn't coming back.
This happened in the week The Reform Party held a ‘Make Britain Great’ event and UKonward, a right-wing think tank launched an initiative, the "Future of Conservatism event series," discussing the UK economy and industrial strategy in a fragmenting world.
Good that there was so much consensus at this @ukonward event last night on the need for the UK to be serious about industrial strategy and quite a lot of agreement about some necessary ingredients. Here's a good thread summarising the proceedings... https://t.co/rNJArhxxN5
— Richard Jones (@RichardALJones) April 18, 2023
Note Theresa May's former chief adviser on the front row, the man who perhaps more than most is responsible for the hard Brexit that we opted for. There isn’t any doubting their sincerity in wanting the country to be successful. We all want that, but the problem they and other Brexiteers have is that they don’t believe Britain isn’t great already. If you were to offer any criticism however constructive, they would immediately accuse you of 'talking Britain down.'
This (and by extension them) is Britain’s biggest problem.
You don't become a global leader by rejecting criticism or simply believing you're superior. It takes a lot of money and hard, dedicated work for years and years to establish yourself and you can never afford to rest on your laurels and allow yourself to think you are the best.
Britain hasn't got that attitude and will never get it unless it drops the whole idea that we are special, because we aren't. And that's the sad truth.
