Sir Kerr Starmer seeks to strengthen diplomatic relations with the Donald Trump administration by turning the UK’s concentration on artificial intelligence towards security cooperation rather than focusing on safety concerns.

Technology Minister Peter Kyle announced on Friday that the United Kingdom Amnesty International The Safety Institute, which was created only 15 months ago, will be renamed at the Institute of Artificial Intelligence Security.

The commission, which granted a budget of 50 million pounds, will not focus on the risks associated with bias and freedom of expression, but “on the advancement of our understanding of the most dangerous risks posed by technology.”

Earlier this week, the United Kingdom joined the United States at the Paris AI in Paris to refuse to sign a common environment – accredited by about 60 states, including France, Germany, India and China – which has pledged to make sure of “artificial intelligence open, comprehensive and transparent, Moral, safe, safe and confident.

Officials said the recent movements of artificial intelligence were part of a broader strategy at a time when the Trump administration participated in a trade war against China and the European Union. Some believe that compatibility with American priorities on artificial intelligence can help the UK avoid targeting in other regions.

At the Summit of Artificial Intelligence in Paris this week, US Vice President JD Vance warned of the “excessive” regulations of artificial intelligence and said the country would build “free ideological bias” systems. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, who is close to Trump at an event in Dubai, said on Thursday that “, by virtual terms, artificial intelligence is designed to think about Dei at any cost, it may be believed that many men are in power and only implement them.”

The new UK Ambassador to the United States, Peter Mandleson, said that the “signing policy” will enhance the cooperation between the two technical sectors of the two countries, to ensure that both countries can secure a “logical advantage” on China.

“It will be the catastrophic, if we lose in the West the advanced technology race against China and China, they gained technological strangulation,” said Mandleson, adding that the “backbone” of the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom lies in its defense, intelligence and security partnerships.

Technology experts have criticized Britain’s decision to approach the United States to artificial intelligence by technology experts and civil society groups who argue that the UK exaggerates the estimation of what it provides, while isolating European allies in organizing technology.

“The United States is participating in Amnesty International,” said Hermann Narola, CEO of the UK Intelligence Company. “The most important thing for them is to reach our market. What do they need for us?”

In order for the UK to make an attractive proposal to the United States, you will need to make dangerous concessions on what it could make, including Laxer bases about the inputs used to train artificial intelligence models and a less stringent approach to gross domestic product.

At the height of artificial intelligence, people who have seen the United States’ decision not to sign the joint statement said that it did not clearly distinguish between the use of technology by democratic and authoritarian systems – and pointed to the fact that China was signed.

One of the workers’ deputy described the UK’s decision not to sign the announcement as “a low -cost means to send a clear geopolitical signal,” adding that they believe it was “exactly the right step.”

People close to the UK’s decision argued that the move was excessively interpreted, arguing that it was more due to the limited efforts made by the French hosts from the summit to secure the two sites.

The UK government said that the declaration “did not provide a practical clarity enough to clarity in global rule, and does not address more difficult questions about the national security and the challenge that AI – a decisive focus for the United Kingdom.”

When the Artificial Intelligence Institute was launched for the first time last year, Prime Minister Rishi Sonak said he would explore “all risks, from social damage such as bias and wrong information, to the most likely but severe risk, such as humanity that completely loses artificial intelligence.”

Since then, Starmer has so far installed the artificial intelligence safety bill pending greater clarity than the United States government of its priorities, according to the people who have seen this. Theoretically, the law will transform voluntary agreements on the pre -market test for models by AISI with companies including Meta, Amazon and Openai, into legally binding obligations.

“Safety is linked to the control of social media platforms because they were safety teams in some of these platforms responsible for the decision to remove Donald Trump from the main platforms,” ​​said Gregory Si Aline, Director of the INSA at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Allen said he would not be surprised if the United States changed its AISI name in the near future. The body has so far struggled to employ employees in the background of deep political uncertainty. Last week, it appeared that the inaugural director of the institute, Elizabeth Kelly, was descending from her role.

Jacob Mokander, Director of Policy for Science and Technology at the Tony Blair Institute, said that AISI in the UK was “the best financing in the world”, so if the United States continues to cooperate with the United Kingdom, it may continue to “obtain the Institute of Artificial Intelligence, but send all Its models to the UK test. “

Lord Peter Riquit, former National Security Adviser in the United Kingdom and Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has expressed doubts that following up on artificial intelligence will be a fruitful rope of diplomacy.

He said: “The ecological system in the United States AI is so vast that any contribution to the United Kingdom can only make a marginal contribution and part of that will be our strength provided.” “If we agree with the United States and put ourselves at odds with the European Union, which will definitely weaken our ability to resist – and perhaps harm to re -appointment [with the EU]”

Additional reports from Chloe Corniche in Dubai