We must use AI to give us genuine life chances.

Here is the edited version:

---

I recently took part in aa debate initiated by the Archbishop of Canterbury that “this House takes note of the impact of Artificial Intelligence on human relationships and society”. A very wide ranging debagte on how we can ensure that AI works for humanity. This is an edited version what I said;

I warmly thank the most reverend Primate for initiating this debate and for her very comprehensive, thought-provoking and empathetic introduction.

This really has been a stimulating and thoughtful debate. I very much welcome the Church’s continuing involvement in AI policy. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford was a member of the original House of Lords AI Select Committee, which I had the honour of chairing. It was he who proposed the ethical framework of five principles that the committee adopted in its 2018 report. Those principles — that AI should serve the common good, operate with intelligibility and fairness, respect data rights and privacy, be accompanied by universal AI education and never be given the autonomous power to hurt, destroy or deceive human beings — have since found their way, in substance, into the G20 AI principles, the OECD AI principles and a succession of international declarations. The Bishop  planted those seeds in 2018.

As a liberal humanist, I come to these questions from a different angle from the Archbishop and the Bishop of Oxford But this debate has demonstrated a convergence of values that goes well beyond any single set of beliefs. Pope Leo’s Magnifica Humanitas encyclical, mentioned by so many noble Lords today, deserves attention well beyond the 1.3 billion Catholics it formally addresses. . What is most compelling is the encyclical’s insistence that no person can be reduced to productivity, cognitive performance or mere data, and that every human being bears a freedom and value no machine can replace or block. I would express that in the language of liberal rights rather than theology, but the substance is identical.

A number of noble Lords described the benefits of AI. We have also talked about some of the risks, in particular hidden risks such as the threat to resilience and the deskilling of curiosity Those risks have been extremely cogently articulated today.

This means that the questions the Archbishop  asked in this context are entirely apposite. Just because we can, should we be developing these AI models? What direction do we want to go in, while we still have the choice? The very important question of alignment was also raised — what kind of AI are we content to see being developed?  Technology is not neutral; we have choices.

Ofcom data published last month shows that just over half of UK adults now use generative AI, rising to 79% for 16 to 24 year-olds. Of those users, 12% report using AI as a friend or as someone to talk to — the simulation of intimacy . In the United States, therapy and companionship is already the number one use of generative AI, and that is where we are heading.

I readily acknowledge that AI companions can offer a safe space for neurodivergent users to rehearse social interactions. Well-designed AI can encourage care and consideration. The question is whether it is governed in the interests of those who use it, especially the young and vulnerable. Children’s exposure to these AI chatbots demands the strongest safeguards. As several noble Lords said, they should not face it alone, and we should not be outsourcing childhood.

The encyclical speaks of algorithms blocking access to healthcare, employment and security on the basis of data tainted by prejudice, and of the silence of those who have no voice when such decisions are made. This is exactly the power issue raised by several noble Lords. The encyclical argues explicitly that algorithmic processes must “not be imposed from above in an opaque and unilateral manner”, and that communities need transparency, accountability and meaningful avenues for recourse. That is precisely what the Horizon scandal, and similar cases elsewhere, taught us at devastating human cost. It is precisely why mandatory algorithmic impact assessments and clear accountability and transparency principles are moral necessities, not just some sort of regulatory red tape.

As several noble Lords mentioned, AI models scraping creative content without consent — producing deepfakes and synthetic information — are creating a huge threat to our creative industries, which has 2 million workers and is worth £145 billion per annum to the UK economy. They are also corroding public trust and causing creative and democratic harm.

The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that AI could materially impact 40% of the UK labour force over the next 10 years, with administrative, secretarial, sales and customer service roles most exposed. This potentially creates societies susceptible to political as well as economic dislocation, affecting the very fabric of society. These issues must urgently be addressed.

Sir Tony Blair is right that AI represents an epochal change. Where we part company is whether the right response is acceptance or governance. The decisions made in the coming years will shape AI’s trajectory for decades, and those decisions require democratic oversight, not deference to whoever controls the infrastructure. There is also the environmental dimension.

Sir Alan Milburn’s interim report, published last week, tells us that young people now make up close to one in nine workers, with 1.25 million at risk of becoming NEET within five years, at a cost of £125 billion a year to the economy. Six in 10 of those young people have never had a job. Sir Alan describes their experience of recruitment as “applications disappearing into a void, interviews followed by silence, and recruitment processes that felt designed to deter rather than select.” This is the algorithmic hiring gatekeeper for jobseekers. We need to reckon with an AI-transformed labour market. Fifty years ago, Ralf Dahrendorf, whose philosophy underpins my values, argued that real freedom is not just freedom from interference; it is freedom to build a life and to have genuine life chances. Sir Alan’s lost generation risks having neither.

A National Education Union survey published in April found that two-thirds of secondary teachers believed that pupils’ critical thinking had declined due to AI usage — yet these are the crucial skills for the future. Judgment is the antithesis of cognitive offloading. Most strikingly, half of all schools have no policy on AI use by staff or students. This is not a technology problem; it is a governance failure.

We have heard about the work on human flourishing in education. The OECD’s Education for Human Flourishing framework argues that in the age of AI, education must strengthen human agency, human meaning and human security. It prioritises distinctive human intelligence as the capacity to know and understand others and to understand oneself as a learner. We can look to other models — Finland being one answer — to prepare our children for an uncertain world, but we have not yet done so.

Many questions have been asked today on online safety, AI safety, ethical balance and the potential governance of superintelligent systems. I simply ask the Minister: when the values of liberal humanism, the Church of England and the Catholic Church, the public, AI experts, the international institutions and the Government’s own manifesto all point in the same direction, what are the Government waiting for? Why are we not putting in the kind of regulatory framework that so many noble Lords have asked for today?

Decisions in the coming year will shape AI’s trajectory for generations. Regulation and innovation are not in opposition. Whether this technology becomes our servant or master will be determined not by the technology itself, but by whether those of us in positions of responsibility had the courage to act in time. We must not be rabbits in the headlights. As the Arhbishop said, we must put people ahead of profit and technology. I look forward to the Minister’s response.