AI: Human Extinction
Tuesday, 15 September 2026
Contributions
Question
Asked by
Baroness Teather
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the risk of AI causing human extinction within the next decade.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, AI is advancing at an extraordinary pace, creating opportunities and risks that do not stop at national borders. All new emerging technologies have had an impact on society, and it is government’s role to help mitigate potential risks. The UK is leading global efforts to test and understand AI, with one of the best-resourced AI security institutes in the world, which will help us develop the standards and safeguards necessary to keep people safe.
Baroness Teather (LD)
In recent days, we have heard urgent warnings from industry leaders, and even a Nobel Prize winner, about the arms race to superintelligence and the potential for grave harm to humanity. Whether you focus on apocalyptic risks or human rights abuses from AI happening now, experts are crying out for international collaboration, transparency and regulation to ensure that AI is used for human flourishing, not harm. Will the Government use all their influence, including as host of the G20 next year, to work for international agreement to mitigate risks, and lead the way here by bringing forward an AI Bill to give statutory teeth to the AI Security Institute, which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones has long argued for?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a range of important points. I want to reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government treat AI risks with extreme seriousness. Like others, we are pleased that some of the sector is talking about the risks, because only by talking about them are we able to work through solutions. As a responsible leader in AI security, we monitor a full range of risks that could be posed by frontier AI. I note that the noble Baroness made a number of different points and questions. I am very happy to meet her to talk through where we think we might go with this policy area.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in light of the existential threats referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, and having chaired the inquiry launched by the Joint Committee on Human Rights into AI and human rights, with 10 oral sessions, including important evidence from Minister Kanishka Narayan, may I ask the Minister whether she will urgently read this 94-page report, published yesterday and now available in the Printed Paper Office? Having particular regard to its 59 recommendations and conclusions on the inadequacy of existing law and regulations, will she ensure a swift response and that we will have the opportunity to debate this report fully in your Lordships’ House?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I commend the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its report. I read it on the way into London yesterday. It is an interesting read and very clearly written. As somebody who would not purport to be as much of an AI expert as our AI Minister, I felt that it explained how AI works in very clear terms—so, from that point alone, I commend it to noble Lords to read. The Government are taking an agile and context-based approach to AI regulation. We are trying to balance the opportunities for growth with safety. We believe this approach allows risks to be addressed in the context in which they arise, while also supporting growth and innovation. We will respond fully to the Joint Committee’s report in due course.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, if you watched the news yesterday, you would have seen an AI actor being interviewed by a certain Ed Balls and Susanna Reid. By the evening’s “News at Ten”, we had heard about AI extinction from the big AI tech bros. In the middle of that, we had an APPG AI session on what leadership looks like for AI. The questions were about international leadership, business leadership in the UK and how to reassure the public. What are the Government doing about reassuring the public when they hear all these messages about AI?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The main thing we need to do is not downplay people’s concerns. Clearly, when world experts and people who have been working in this field are raising concerns about it, the worst thing we could do as a Government would be to say, “Nothing to see here”, because we are so keen to be part of the huge positive way forward for AI. That is the first step. One of the things we should do more of is talk about our successes through the AI Security Institute, AISI. I have been impressed by what I have heard about it and I think the public would be reassured by some of the big successes of AISI over recent months and years.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is an international issue and that the only way we can deal with it is internationally? The most important part will be to make sure that the regulator has the ability to police what is going on in China, America and the rest of the world.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend raises a number of interesting points. It is true that we need to address this internationally. AI clearly crosses national borders. It is not like previous forms of new technology. We need to find the way forward in getting the balance right. We have been using our opportunity to lead internationally in having those conversations across borders as one of the leaders in AI safety.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a consultant to DLA Piper on AI regulation and policy. Just two weeks ago, the Government resisted a proposal from Members right across this House to introduce an AI kill switch into cyber legislation on the grounds that the Government were “technology agnostic”. How agnostic does the Minister feel today?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I presume that the noble Lord is referring to the amendment tabled to the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and information Systems) Bill. One of the things that we have done is introduce the Bill and the guidance to work through that. I know that my noble friend Lady Lloyd will be happy to talk further with the noble Lord about this. One of the issues with a kill switch is that it would be impossible for Britain simply to turn AI off. Another issue is the extent of people’s concerns about whether a kill switch could or would work, but I know my noble friend Lady Lloyd would be delighted to speak further to the noble Lord.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree with the earlier question. When it comes to managing the existential end of AI risks, unilateral regulation is of very limited value, because the risk is of course global. Given this, what is the Government’s assessment of existing efforts to drive multilateral regulation, many of which, including the G20 that was mentioned earlier, have been trundling on for many years without a great deal of results. What more can the Government do and, in the absence of DSIT, which Ministry is in charge?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
In the absence of DSIT, as the noble Lord said, we have embedded AI across government by having the very first AI Minister sitting at the Cabinet table. The Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade has responsibility for AI policy, including growth, innovation and infrastructure. The newly expanded Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has responsibility for tech sector oversight, cyber security and online safety, and Minister Narayan sits across different departments. We cannot have our policy on AI sitting separately from all other policy areas; it is vital that we get this driven across all areas of government.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Might I ask the Minister whether the Government are thinking of talking to China?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Government are clear that all parties involved in the development of AI need to be in agreement about a way forward.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords—
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords—
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, we will hear from the Conservative Benches.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, the tech companies, particularly the social media companies, have argued for a decade that their technology is global and, therefore, that local regulation is not the way to do it. Yet Australia, and now, I believe, this House have realised that local regulation is the only way you get global regulation in the end. Why do we think AI is any different?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I apologise if I gave the impression that we do not think we should have any regulation relating to AI. What I was trying to get across was that we are taking an agile and context-based approach to AI regulation, which seeks to get a balance. The Government have put through a number of pieces of legislation that have AI-related elements. I will be very happy to write to the noble Baroness to outline what these are.
Source: UK Parliament Hansard API. Debate ID: 5408137.