The UK’s Big Pitch: AI Innovation Over Accountability

Anuradha Sajjanhar is an Assistant Professor in Politics and Policy at the University of East Anglia, UK.

Framed as a transformative vision for economic growth, national renewal, and cutting-edge public services, the UK’s AI Opportunities Action Plan announced on Monday embodies the optimism—and risks—of a future increasingly dominated by AI. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s accompanying Financial Times op-ed (“Britain doesn’t need to walk a US or EU path on AI”) is emblematic of the government’s techno-utopian pitch. Starmer lauds AI as a game-changer, capable of everything from spotting potholes to slashing NHS waiting times and personalizing education. He even suggests that AI will make public services “feel more human,” giving the rest of us the “precious gift of time.”

But such claims are strikingly devoid of detail. How, for instance, will AI achieve these sweeping outcomes? And what are the trade-offs? The idea that algorithms can enhance the human-centric work of teaching while simultaneously “personalizing” it reflects a simplistic understanding of AI’s capabilities. This vision conflates automation with empathy and expertise. Starmer promises tech companies that the UK will provide a “distinctly British” form of AI regulation, where it tests AI long before it regulates, removing ludicrous planning blockages to building data centers and working with private companies as ‘partners’ rather than, presumably, keeping them accountable to the people they impact. This narrative of AI as a cure-all distracts from the complex, often messy, reality of embedding advanced technologies into public systems. It also raises unsettling questions about the government’s priorities: does the race to lead in AI innovation overshadow its responsibility to protect democratic values, public accountability, and equitable governance?

Tech Giants: Partners or New Sovereigns?

Technology Secretary Peter Kyle recently drew a telling comparison, suggesting that global tech giants now wield influence akin to sovereign states. In the UK, this dynamic is playing out in real-time. Companies like Google, Microsoft, and Palantir are not merely collaborators—they are becoming architects of public infrastructure. The government’s creation of AI Growth Zones, with the first located at the UK Atomic Energy Authority in Culham, illustrates this troubling dynamic. These zones promise expedited planning permissions for data centers and infrastructure, signaling to global investors that the UK is open for AI business. Yet these initiatives echo the deregulated Special Economic Zones seen in the Global South—spaces that often prioritize corporate profit over worker protections, environmental sustainability, and local welfare.

The UK government’s plan to use modular nuclear reactors to power AI data centers underscores the massive energy demands of AI systems but also reveals the environmental costs that are conveniently absent from the celebratory announcements. By courting tech giants with regulatory leniency and infrastructure incentives, the UK risks ceding public accountability to private actors, effectively turning governance into a subsidiary of the tech industry.

Public Governance and the Civil Service

As algorithms are increasingly being used in high-stakes areas such as the NHS, the welfare system, and immigration, its hallmark opacity—the “black box” problem—looms large, making decisions based on criteria that are hidden from both the public and, often, the officials tasked with overseeing them.

The Home Office’s use of AI for visa processing, for example, has faced allegations of embedding racial and socioeconomic biases, resulting in discriminatory outcomes. Similarly, in the welfare system, predictive analytics are used to flag potential fraud, but these tools have been criticized for disproportionately targeting vulnerable populations while offering little transparency about how decisions are made. These examples illustrate a broader pattern: the increasing opacity of decision-making in public governance as algorithms replace human discretion.

In the UK, where public services are already under strain, the adoption of AI risks compounding existing inequalities while shielding decision-makers from scrutiny. Civil servants, touted as the “human-in-the-loop” ensuring accountability, often lack the technical expertise or authority to challenge algorithmic decisions effectively. In theory, their role is to provide oversight and ensure that algorithmic outputs align with public policy objectives. In practice, however, this oversight is often superficial. Civil servants frequently lack the technical expertise required to interrogate complex algorithms, leaving them reliant on the private companies that design and maintain these systems. For example, Palantir’s involvement in NHS data analytics has raised questions about the extent to which public officials understand the tools they are using. Reports suggest that civil servants often defer to the expertise of private contractors, effectively outsourcing critical decision-making to tech firms. This dynamic risks creating a culture of deference, where algorithmic outputs are treated as infallible, and the professional judgment of civil servants is sidelined.

Moreover, the UK’s civil service autonomy is being eroded by the pressures of AI-driven governance. Once empowered to exercise discretion and adapt policies to local contexts, civil servants are increasingly constrained by the rigid logic of algorithmic systems. This shift has profound implications for democratic accountability. If civil servants are reduced to passive operators of AI tools, who will ensure that these systems serve the public good?

Rethinking the Future: Beyond Transparency and Accountability

If the UK is to lead in AI innovation without sacrificing democratic integrity, it must go beyond surface-level commitments to transparency and accountability. The path forward requires a fundamental rethinking of how technology intersects with governance, equity, and public welfare.

1. Reclaiming State Sovereignty

The government must recalibrate its relationships with tech giants, establishing itself not as a junior partner but as a firm regulator. Policies that prioritize corporate interests over public welfare—such as unchecked growth zones—must be reassessed to ensure they align with long-term societal goals.

2. Empowering Civil Servants as Digital Stewards

Civil servants must be equipped not only with technical expertise but also with the authority to challenge and shape AI systems. This includes fostering interdisciplinary training that bridges governance, ethics, and technology, empowering officials to act as stewards of public values in the digital age.

3. Embedding Equity in AI Design

AI applications must be co-designed with marginalized communities to ensure they address societal needs rather than perpetuating inequalities. This involves not just consultation but genuine power-sharing in the development and deployment of AI systems.

4. Investing in Democratic Resilience

Public institutions must be reimagined to withstand the disruptive potential of AI. This includes creating forums for ongoing citizen deliberation about technology’s role in governance and establishing mechanisms to hold both private developers and public officials accountable.

5. Enforcing Ethical AI Development

Rather than relying on voluntary guidelines, the UK must establish a robust regulatory framework with enforceable standards. This framework should govern AI across high-stakes domains like healthcare, immigration, and policing, ensuring that public safety and welfare remain paramount.

What future can we see?

The UK Prime Minister delivered his verdict in The Financial Times: “We can see the future, we are running towards it and we back our builders. Because we know that AI has arrived as the ultimate force for change and national renewal.” The government stands firmly with the AI industry, throwing its weight behind what he enthusiastically refers to as the "builders of the future." It's a resounding promise designed to reassure tech leaders and innovators that their vision will not be hindered.

But by aligning so closely with industry, the government risks sidelining those who are charged with safeguarding the public interest—regulators tasked with preventing harm before it spirals out of control. Equally excluded are the voices of civil society and the individuals already grappling with AI-driven displacement and harm. These are the people whose present realities—reshaped by opaque algorithms and automated systems—demand urgent attention, yet their concerns are conspicuously absent from this narrative of progress.

This isn't just a question of misplaced priorities; it's a telling snapshot of a government that seems to favor innovation at any cost over a balanced approach that includes accountability, equity, and protection for all. The future may indeed be built by the AI industry, but who ensures it’s one worth living in for everyone?