I still think the UK's best bet in managing its place in the AI/semiconductor ecosystem is to lean into its regulatory intellectual property and prestige, cementing itself as a trusted evaluation partner rather than a distributor of hardware. www.thetimes.com/article/9f96...

If Burnham and co. do view big tech/Silicon Valley as the new bogeyman, surely concentrating British AI regulation in one place makes it easier to standardise HMG approaches (notorious for being poorly linked) for rollout across the sectors and to promote exports power?

Not a good look for a country that is positioning its considerable regulatory credentials as a counterpoint to the suck-it-and-see approach of the US. @dsonic.bsky.social x.com/i/status/207...

Not a good look for a country that is positioning its considerable regulatory credentials as a counterpoint to the suck-it-and-see approach of the US. @dsonic.bsky.social x.com/i/status/207...

In what is now their most reliable service, South East Water has apologised for water supply failures in Tunbridge Wells. www.thetimes.com/article/43a5...

Love Hilary Rose for this discerning review of Burnham's idolatry of his darkest self. www.thetimes.com/article/8eb6...

Hearing that Lord Vallance has stepped down. Pretty terrible optics for a new government already growing a Luddite reputation.

If a broken-up DSIT sees some of its remaining functions cohered around applied science, around higher TRL tech, we'll know where the priorities are and it won't be R&D for its longer-term outputs.

If humans behaved like dogs, we would sniff 15 toilet seats before deciding where to finally sit down.

Gabby: What was your highlight of the half time show? Wayne Rooney: When it finished. I thought it was crap. 10/10 punditry. No notes.

Who knew conflating growth at all costs with national security and pure science priorities would work out so well for everyone, right.

Kimi K3 cannot write a good murder mystery (though neither can any other model). That remains the jaggedest of frontiers. They both make things too obvious (the letter) and too obscure, and cannot foreshadow to save their artificial lives.

It is just so charmingly "enthusiastic" about some of the poetry.

When I asked Kimi K3 "I want you to suggest two poems that you think apply to the current state of GenAI models like you. Don’t just pick popular poems. Think hard" the CoT was 32 pages long (& interesting): docs.google.com/document/d/1... Also typical of K3, lots of looping & dead ends as well.

These are just plans at the moment but they are getting big pushback from the tech industry already.

🚨 Earlier today, the FT reported speculation about the future of the science and technology dept. I’m told Burnham’s team has drawn up plans to scrap it altogether, with part going to DBT and part to DCMS. Antonia Romeo wd oversee rolling out AI in the public service.

NEW: As Andy Burnham finalises his plans for govt, his plans to scrap the technology dept entirely are causing significant upset among investors, tech experts and some in Whitehall. www.theguardian.com/politics/202...

AI, crypto, quantum in their various guises, aren't going away. Having no strategic fulcrum between HMG, industry and academia could cost us billions in the long run and that is only the quantifiable part of the impact analysis.

Ultimately I think Burnham moving away from a dedicated science/tech department sends entirely the wrong message to allies, to British industry and academia, and even if the cut-through to public is minimal it will have a negative impact on their lives.

But so far all I've seen are obvious signs of influential men using professional enablers and high-net-worth donors with dubious wealth provenance (hi, Tether) to accumulate personal and professional advantages.

A deregulatory approach to sifting new tech through social strata is fine when innovation brings growth for the public at large. I'm sure Farage, Jenrick and co. have had this on their minds while adopting loose-play US approaches to wealth.

There's already been too many instances of tech-being-done to people and I imagine it's creating a societal sentiment for some demographics that big tech is now synonymous with tech bro culture and far right-wing ideologies, of greed in Silicon Valley.

Would also add that while the US administration demonstrates a laissez faire approach to crypto and AI regulation - an ideology promoted by Farage and his ilk - Labour has an opportunity to show what the UK's counterpoint would be.

Also, I'm pretty sure I saw only on Friday that Burnham's claiming to be business-friendly? Could've fooled me, if this is the trajectory for tech and science.

That we consider it incumbent on other jurisdictions - some with dubious human rights track records and openly belligerent intentions towards this country - to set the pace of technological transitions.

That tech isn't worth strategic direction and autonomous funding through a dedicated department to cohere the country's economic growth around future technologies.

It's the optics of such a decision - telling the world that our administration considers science to be superfluous (when funding has already been pulled for universities' physics departments). www.thetimes.com/article/49b8...

It isn't only the fact that another government department incorporating some of the DSIT functions would need to start again with industry and academia stakeholders.

I guess we really are fixated on handing the tech race on a plate to our trade partners and adversaries, then. www.theguardian.com/politics/202...

Within the space of 5 minutes, two possible Burnham government trails that lead me to think I won't get on with it.

Tony Blair would be proud of this level playing field. www.politico.eu/article/wes-...

I guess we really are fixated on handing the tech race on a plate to our trade partners and adversaries, then. www.theguardian.com/politics/202...

One crucial factor in the Jingye Group acquisition of British Steel - it went through in March 2020, so a tad too early to fall under the aegis of the National Security Investment Act that came into effect in Jan 2022. www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...

Telling people they *have the right* to mandate security measures (originally written as guidance by the National Technical Authorities for security) can be stipulated as part of their contractual obligations for suppliers, has been the highlight of today because I am that sad.

Existing biosec measures included in the statement.

Amongst adjacent documents published, the Biological Security Strategy Implementation Report on GOV.UK- sets out "further commitments to ensure that, by 2030, the UK is resilient against a spectrum of biological threats and a world leader in responsible innovation".

Government’s annual update on UK national resilience - covers new commitments on home defence (inc. military and civil preparedness strategies for conflict readiness), energy and transport resilience, and biological security. questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-stat...

Plus an improved appreciation among workforces (not only in CNI) for personnel security e.g., insider threat identification and hostile state coercion, particularly in civilian academic research, which may well find its funding and resources co-opted towards a hypothetical war effort.

Taking into account the existing capabilities of known aggressor states, plus the fact they're unlikely to work alone, it would require economic and cyber security measures forming protective strata across industries and the public sector

This is where existing strategies such as JESIP and terrorism responses by the emergency services provide useful scalability templates, but national security pulls across more than the physical aspects and it'll require a holistic, standardised approach.

Interesting piece on the radical gap analysis needed to baseline the UK's current hypothetical support to the armed forces in the event of war vs. where improvements are needed to provide auxiliary services on a domestic front.

Good write-up of "Operation Albiston Shadow", Britain's domestic defence exercise planned for next year, by Deborah Haynes for Sky News. I'd post the interview but Sky only makes formal appearances on X. news.sky.com/story/uk-wil...

Many aspects of the public sector (hi, NHS) are lumbered with anachronistic ways of working and archaic IT infrastructure. Others like academia have a natural penchant for sharing information and freely associating with partner researchers in other states, where due diligence might be required.

It's also asking a lot of the public to embed a holistic security culture pulling across multiple sectors with their own unique interfaces or indeed, no interaction whatsoever.

Government’s annual update on UK national resilience - covers new commitments on home defence (inc. military and civil preparedness strategies for conflict readiness), energy and transport resilience, and biological security. questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-stat...

So while the Elections Bill doesn't specifically cite donation-splitting, and a donations cap for all donors rather than only foreign entities isn't on the cards, the existing draft Bill measures should go a long way towards managing the adjacent risks.

Conversion of crypto to fiat wouldn't legitimise a donation, since source‑of‑funds provenance needs to be traceable back to the donor’s own UK‑based resources in a legit bank account.

These cut across the risk of micro-donations - essentially larger values cut up and transacted across multiple crypto wallets or bank accounts - which could otherwise be used to circumvent donation caps, and layered through both crypto and fiat currencies. www.ft.com/content/c01c...

and use of crypto to facilitate donations. electoral-reform.org.uk/government-t...

would be reinforced by provisions built into the Representation of the People Bill around both donation provenance www.theguardian.com/politics/202...