Politics

Copy article

AI Ethics: People Need It, Politicians Ignore It, Profit Margins Hate It

ended 11. November 2025

Computer Weekly reports Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights has exposed a dangerous three-way split on AI regulation: 

  • the public feels AI protections are essential
  • the government treats AI as an optional extra that might win votes if it brings down the cost of public service provision
  • private companies view ethics as expensive red tape. 

The inquiry comes as the Chancellor prepares the Budget where income tax and NIC payments may plummet as junior roles are axed en masse. Michael Birtwistle from the Ada Lovelace Institute told MPs people feel "strongly disenfranchised" around AI, with "high levels of concern about whether government will prioritise Big Tech relationships (over them)."

The government's position is clear: the AI Opportunities Action Plan contains "significant ambitions to grow AI adoption" but little on mitigating risks and "no mention of human rights."  Silkie Carlo from Big Brother Watch warns AI surveillance systems will spiral into an Orwellian nightmare, with no proof of promised cost savings for public services.

Private companies resist limits unless unavoidable, such as AI causing loss of life. Legal action for those harmed costs "seven-figure sums." Companies argue regulation burdens innovation, yet operate with no oversight in sectors affecting millions, accountable to no one until something breaks, then apologise after the damage is done.

Society faces a choice: shape the future according to our values, or let commercial incentives shape our lives. The evidence before Parliament suggests that choice has been made and the public lost.

We want your views:

  • If AI is cutting junior jobs en masse, how will the Chancellor replace lost income tax and NIC revenues in the Budget?
  • Should companies using AI to cut headcount pay a "displacement levy" to fund retraining or basic services for those made redundant?
  • When the promised AI productivity gains go to shareholders but costs fall on taxpayers, what's the policy response?
  • If surveillance systems can "spiral into Orwellian nightmares," should the Budget fund independent oversight bodies with enforcement powers?
  • What's the transition plan for workers displaced before AI abundance arrives, if it ever does?

2 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Star Quote
Copy

Colette MasonVerified
AI Ethics Consultant at Clever Clogs AI
It’s clear no one’s coming to save us from this. Not Parliament, not the Chancellor, not the tech companies profiting from human replacement.

The evidence is clear: government chose Big Tech relationships over public protection, companies chose profit margins over accountability, and your legal redress costs seven figures you don’t have.

If you want AI that protects human dignity instead of steamrolling it, society will have to vote with its own feet, mice, and wallets.

If we demanded every publicly funded or regulated AI system proved human-in-the-loop accountability, showing who can override, appeal, or repair its decisions, we could rebuild trust and jobs together. AI that keeps people in command, not out of work, could still be the best economic engine Britain ever built.
Copy

Patricia McGirrVerified
Founder at Repossession Rescue Network
Pushing innovation before implication is the road to perdition. The paranoia around missing out has fuelled a fever dream of AI adoption, with government, agencies and business rushing headlong into systems they barely understand. The drive for scale has replaced sense. Proliferation without precaution is a recipe for chaos, and when it fails, it’s taxpayers, workers and consumers left picking up the bill. Governance isn’t red tape, it’s insurance; and right now, no one’s checking if the policy is fit for purpose.