Mid-interview with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Elon Musk began speculating that AI “friends” might be better than real-life ones.
Musk‘s proposition in front of an invited audience of business leaders was that supercomputers that use advanced algorithms to mimic human contact might present more attractive future companionship model for humanity than real-life living, breathing friends.
For some this might seem bleak, perhaps even worthy of challenge: yet Sunak – in his sharp suit and tie – laughed along Musk, in the jeans and T-shirt.
Both men agreed that, given what they had seen in the Terminator movies, an off-switch for robots that have gone wrong were a good idea.
This was not a moment for difficult questions.
“We feel very proud, very excited to have you,” said Rishi Sunak at the start of the event, which Downing Street has been speaking about in hushed tones for days.
More on Artificial Intelligence
Related Topics:
Having Musk at the AI summit was undoubtedly a coup, lending an important significance to an event that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was heavily invested in.
But whether it was wise to allow Sunak to interview Musk on Thursday night – a 40-minute softball event where the PM seemed intent on impressing one of the most powerful unelected individuals in the globe – is an altogether different question.
Advertisement
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Musk is a controversial figure for a reason – his particular business interests – internet connectivity, space and manufacturing – mean his decisions can be inextricably intertwined – and can conflict – with Britain’s domestic and foreign policy goals.
Musk can offer internet services to Gaza that Israel has denied, via his Starlink satellite system. He can intervene in the Ukraine war to help or restrain Ukraine’s efforts against Russia. He has strong views on migration and the mainstream media.
Yet the power balance at the event in Lancaster House did not suggest this. Rishi Sunak looked like the one wanting to impress, selling low-tax Britain, espousing the need to embrace failure more readily, giggling along.
Sunak clearly wanted Musk’s blessing for the AI summit and its achievements: why?
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Strategy’s Michael Saylor and BitMine’s Tom Lee are among 18 industry leaders who will look at ways to pass the BITCOIN Act and enable budget-neutral ways to buy Bitcoin.
It was a prescient and – as it turned out – incredibly optimistic sign off from Peter Mandelson after eight years as Chancellor of Manchester Metropolitan University.
“I hope I survive in my next job for at least half that period”, the Financial Times reported him as saying – with a smile.
As something of a serial sackee from government posts, we know Sir Keir Starmer was, to an extent, aware of the risks of appointing the ‘Prince of Darkness’ as his man in Washington.
But in his first interview since he gave the ambassador his marching orders, the prime minister said if he had “known then what I know now” then he would not have given him the job.
For many Labour MPs, this will do little to answer questions about the slips in political judgement that led Downing Street down this disastrous alleyway.
Like the rest of the world, Sir Keir Starmer did know of Lord Mandelson’s friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein when he sent him to Washington.
More on Peter Kyle
Related Topics:
The business secretary spelt out the reasoning for that over the weekend saying that the government judged it “worth the risk”.
Image: Keir Starmer welcomes Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte to Downing Street.
Pic: PA
This is somewhat problematic.
As you now have a government which – after being elected on the promise to restore high standards – appears to be admitting that previous indiscretions can be overlooked if the cause is important enough.
Package that up with other scandals that have resulted in departures – Louise Haigh, Tulip Siddiq, Angela Rayner – and you start to get a stink that becomes hard to shift.
But more than that, the events of the last week again demonstrate an apparent lack of ability in government to see round corners and deal with crises before they start knocking lumps out of the Prime Minister.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:02
‘Had I known then, what I know now, I’d have never appointed him’ Starmer said.
Remember, for many the cardinal sin here was not necessarily the original appointment of Mandelson (while eyebrows were raised at the time, there was nowhere near the scale of outrage we’ve had in the last week with many career diplomats even agreeing the with logic of the choice) but the fact that Sir Keir walked into PMQs and gave the ambassador his full throated backing when it was becoming clear to many around Westminster that he simply wouldn’t be able to stay in post.
The explanation from Downing Street is essentially that a process was playing out, and you shouldn’t sack an ambassador based on a media enquiry alone.
But good process doesn’t always align with good politics.
Something this barrister-turned-politician may now be finding out the hard way.