Subsequent to the significant AI security summit at Bletchley Park this November, US commerce secretary Gina Raimondo and British technology secretary Michelle Donelan have pledged to collaborate on AI model safety trials between the two nations. Despite sharing common ground concerning AI safety, the UK and the US possess distinctive stances towards AI regulation.

The UK, well-versed in agile regulatory practices, traditionally grants regulators substantial discretion in formulating industry guidelines. Within the realm of AI, legislative efforts are primarily geared towards delineating the duties of governmental bodies and the privileges of individuals and enterprises operating within that framework. Rather than enacting dedicated legislation akin to the EU’s AI Act or the Biden Administration's executive order on AI safety, Westminster favors a more incremental approach. Various provisions impacting the AI sector can be found within existing laws such as the Online Safety Act, with oversight responsibilities dispersed among diverse regulatory bodies. Nonetheless, the burgeoning nature of the sector has prompted discussions about establishing a dedicated regulatory body, as hinted at in the recent Artificial Intelligence Regulation Bill.

Conversely, the US government, spearheaded by the White House, has taken steps towards Federal AI regulation, although Congressional interventions remain distinct and specialized. Noteworthy is the enactment of the Federal Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Act of 2023, necessitating all federal agencies to adhere to the AI risk framework crafted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In terms of industry oversight, individual states play a predominant role, with California at the forefront given its cluster of AI innovators in Silicon Valley. In February, California State Senator Scott Weiner unveiled a bill aiming to establish safety norms within the AI industry, emphasizing the need for stringent regulations to guide the development of crucial AI systems.

While multiple governmental bodies engage in endeavours to regulate AI progression across various levels, the formulation of a comprehensive global regulatory framework is deemed a time-consuming task. This aspiration materialized in a recent Memorandum of Understanding, underscoring collaborative efforts between the UK and the US to influence international dialogues on AI regulation. Both nations, albeit ostensibly prioritizing AI safety, harbor substantial technology industries that could suffer under global regulations that impinge on their profitability. Noah Green, an AI specialist at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), opined that the UK’s approach leans towards being more accommodating to businesses compared to the EU. The envisioned partnership between the UK and the US entails joint endeavors in new trial initiatives and mulling over the possibility of staff exchanges between their respective AI safety organizations. Greene commended the UK’s approach for its flexibility which fosters rapid innovation within firms, suggesting that the EU's AI Act, in contrast, presents an excessively broad regulation detrimental to AI software development.

In summary, the collaboration between the US and UK symbolizes a crucial step towards ensuring safety and ethical practices in the realm of AI. Both countries, while pursuing similar objectives, exhibit distinct approaches in their regulatory mechanisms towards AI development and oversight. As the global conversation on AI regulation gains momentum, these partnerships and contrasts shed light on the diverse paradigms shaping the trajectory of AI governance in an increasingly interconnected world.