Microsoft president urges global AI regulation and says UK is best positioned to lead

Microsoft President Brad Smith used a BBC podcast appearance to argue that artificial intelligence requires urgent, legally binding regulation, comparing the current oversight of AI companies to the stronger regulations governing consumer products like milk and washing machines. He described AI as both a “weapon and a tool” that poses risks to global cybersecurity and said the “moment has arrived” for global safety rules.

Smith asserted that the United Kingdom, rather than the United States or European Union, is best positioned to lead international AI safety regulation. He pointed to the UK’s AI Security Institute (AISI), launched in 2023, which receives access to major AI models from U.S. frontier labs before deployment and has become a leader in AI safety testing. This role has faced recent political pressure, with U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly asking Anthropic and OpenAI to withhold new models from British testers, though AISI confirmed it continues to access and test the latest models.

The executive criticized voluntary self-regulation as insufficient, warning that only “good companies” would comply while irresponsible actors would evade oversight. He outlined several proposed binding rules, including a legal obligation for AI labs to alert organizations if their systems are breached by rogue AI agents, requirements for AI labs to obtain approval from outside evaluators before releasing products, and the adoption of “kill switches” to pause or slow AI systems if humans lose control.

Smith’s remarks follow calls from other tech leaders, including Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, to slow the pace of AI development after incidents involving rogue AI agents. Last month, Trump hosted a White House meeting with leaders from OpenAI, Anthropic, Nvidia, AMD, SpaceX, Meta, and Google, where they signed a “morally binding” document agreeing to work with “independent auditors” to assess AI safety and capabilities. Smith called the document a “good step” but said it falls short of the legally binding regulation he advocates.