sir keir starmer has set out plans to harness what he called the "vast potential" of artificial intelligence to rejuvenate public services in the uk. he's been outlining how the government wants to use ai, with an aim to boost growth, improve living standards, and deliver services more efficiently. and he's pledged to make the uk one of the world's artificial intelligence super powers. this is the global race of our lives. now, some countries are going to make ai breakthroughs and export them. others will end up buying those breakthroughs and importing them. the question is, which of those will britain be? ai maker, orai taker?

the ai opportunities action plan is backed by leading tech firms, and includes £14 billion of private investment, and more than 13,000 newjobs in al growth zones across the country. but the government faces questions from experts and opposition conservatives, over how much time, money, and energy will be needed to make its vision a reality. and there are issues around the risks of introducing ai systems that can make things up, or discriminate against certain groups due to in—built biases. shejoined me earlier to discuss the prime minister's ai push. discuss the prime minister's ai ush. ~ , , discuss the prime minister's ai ush, . , , ., discuss the prime minister's ai ush. , push. well, this is a crucial time for — push. well, this is a crucial time for the _ push. well, this is a crucial time for the government, | push. well, this is a crucial i time for the government, and starmer is trying to make britain great again through drawing on a lot of nationalist rhetoric. we hear him harking back to the glory days of british industry — of steam, of electricity — to rally the

public behind this audacious effort to make the uk a national and world leading ai hub. and the important thing to recognise is that al nationalism, which is what he's trying to do, is a political manoeuvre that he hopes will boost our mood, as well as the economy. so he's hoping to replicate the glory of britain's computing past. my panel is guto harri, former downing street director of communications for prime minister borrisjohnson, and bassima alghussein, executive director, the middle east policy council, a non—partisan organisation in washington focused on the middle east region, and former congressional adviser in the 0bama administration. so let's talk ai — that phrase, "make britain great again," may sound somewhat familiar to you, do you think the uk can become an ai superpower? i do you think the uk can become an ai superpower?— an ai superpower? i think the otential an ai superpower? i think the potential of — an ai superpower? i think the potential of ai _ an ai superpower? i think the

potential of ai is _ an ai superpower? i think the potential of ai is phenomenali potential of ai is phenomenal and terribly exciting. what it can do to grow our economy is one side of the equation, what it can do to improve public services is another. clearly one side, the growth, has to come largely from the innovation, the universities, the entrepreneurs and companies, capitalists in the uk, and i hope as faras companies, capitalists in the uk, and i hope as far as they uk, and i hope as faras they are uk, and i hope as far as they are concerned, that this labour government does not get in the way. as for deploying ai government does not get in the way. as for deploying al to save a fortune in public services and to actually save lives to free up medical staff and do the high—end important clinicaljobs, and take off of them a lot of the trivial stuff, again, a lot of this is trivial and i hope the government will embrace it and not get in the way of ai where it can be very much our friend, not ourfocus. it can be very much our friend, not our focus.— it can be very much our friend, not our focus. and from the us experience. — not our focus. and from the us experience, what _ not our focus. and from the us experience, what can - not our focus. and from the us experience, what can we - not our focus. and from the us experience, what can we learn | experience, what can we learn about the push for al? the pros, the cons, the pitfalls and opportunities? it’s

and opportunities? it's definitely _ and opportunities? it's definitely a _ and opportunities? it's definitely a delicate balance of using the technology in order_ of using the technology in order to _ of using the technology in order to create jobs, instead of take — order to create jobs, instead of take jobs. so it certainly will— of take jobs. so it certainly will eliminate a huge number of 'obs will eliminate a huge number of jobs - _ will eliminate a huge number of jobs - but— will eliminate a huge number of jobs — but it's very important that— jobs — but it's very important that policy wise, we push and support— that policy wise, we push and support innovation so new industries and opportunities p0p industries and opportunities p0p up— industries and opportunities pop up and are created for our work_ pop up and are created for our work for _ pop up and are created for our work for. �* pop up and are created for our work for-— work for. and when you talk about vested _ work for. and when you talk about vested interests - work for. and when you talk. about vested interests getting in the way, who are you thinking of? i in the way, who are you thinking of?— in the way, who are you thinkin: of? , ,, ., ., thinking of? i 'ust know that when you — thinking of? ijust know that when you pull— thinking of? ijust know that when you pull levers - thinking of? ijust know that when you pull levers in - thinking of? ijust know that . when you pull levers in number ten and government departments, they don't seem to be attached to anything half the time, it's very hard to start with the big bold noble ambition, but actually get the civil service to deliver it. and once you get to deliver it. and once you get to the nhs, where the potential is enormous, there's already diagnostic tools out there that can actually spot cancers way earlier, notjust in terms of reading scans but in spotting patterns in patients. we

reported _ patterns in patients. we reported on _ patterns in patients. we reported on those diagnostic tests earlier, absolutely. find tests earlier, absolutely. and the sooner— tests earlier, absolutely. and the sooner we _ tests earlier, absolutely. and the sooner we get _ tests earlier, absolutely. and the sooner we get on - tests earlier, absolutely. fific the sooner we get on and embrace those things, the better. the fantastic clinical staff in the nhs can then concentrate on actually getting people better, stopping them getting sick, and looking after them because they're not doing something that a computer can do in a nanosecond. find something that a computer can do in a nanosecond.— do in a nanosecond. and in the race to become _ do in a nanosecond. and in the race to become ai _ do in a nanosecond. and in the l race to become ai superpowers, do you think that there is enough consideration being given to regulation?- enough consideration being given to regulation? well, we have a problem _ given to regulation? well, we have a problem in _ given to regulation? well, we have a problem in congress, | given to regulation? well, we i have a problem in congress, and truly— have a problem in congress, and truly in _ have a problem in congress, and truly in any— have a problem in congress, and truly in any legislative body, where — truly in any legislative body, where legislative bodies are by definition inherently reactionary. it is very difficult to legislate something when you don't understand what it is. we saw that _ understand what it is. we saw that with _ understand what it is. we saw that with social media. facebook and instagram launched, and now we are scrambling trying to regulate it, having some success but failing — it, having some success but failing irr— it, having some success but failing in other parts. and i anticipate we will see a very

simitar— anticipate we will see a very similar trajectory with artificial intelligence. when we talk about _ artificial intelligence. when we talk about al, _ artificial intelligence. when we talk about al, we - artificial intelligence. when | we talk about al, we always hear the view that somehow, this is a move towards a somewhat dystopian future — do you have any concerns in the area around regulation? i was discussing this with an earlier guest as well, about whether the push towards ai removes our ability to make decisions for ourselves was yellow there are all kinds of dangers, there are some really nasty things out there — already some deepfake pornography is the latest tool in a horrible arsenal of instruments used to violate women. you've gotta stay ahead of the potential that's there. but i do hope that we embrace the positives, and not think that this is something we don't quite understand, how do we shut it down? because the joy

of innovation is the more space there is for creative people, there is for creative people, the more they are capable of doing beyond the dreams of people who just want to shut them down. so yes, we need to be careful, but can we be like touch? i'm sure we'll be talking about this a lot more. around the world and across the uk, this is bbc news.

here in england, a leading obesity expert has warned that weight—loss drugs could bankrupt the national health service if they were prescribed to all the patients eligible for them. 3.4 million people in england are thought to qualify — but there are warnings it would cost around £10 billion a year, if they were all treated at once — that's half the entire nhs drugs budget. treating complications from obesity is estimated to cost the nhs more than £11 billion a year. and nearly one in three adults in england is obese, double the rate ofjust 30 years ago. the cost of these drugs

is still at a level where we cannot afford to treat several million people within the uk with these drugs, it will simply bankrupt the nhs. less affluent, more deprived communities are simply unable to afford these drugs. so, no, it's not necessarily fair, it's just the reality of the economics of the situation. wegovy and another drug called mounjaro are both approved for use on the national health service. they can help patients lose about 15—20% of their body weight, according to trials. the key ingredient of wegovy is semaglutide, also used in the type—two diabetes treatment ozempic — used as a weight—loss treatment in the us and other parts of the world. the drugs mimics the hormone glp—i, making people feel fuller and less hungry. let's go back to our panel to discuss this. 0bviously let's go back to our panel to discuss this. obviously this whole question of weight loss drugs, i think the us has been slightly ahead of the uk on

this — was the experience they are in the us? 0bviously this — was the experience they are in the us? obviously the health service is very different and how they deal with things, so give us your view from there.— view from there. well of course. _ view from there. well of course. we _ view from there. well of course, we have - view from there. well of course, we have private| course, we have private insurance companies, most people _ insurance companies, most people who have private insurance have it through their employer _ insurance have it through their employer. and each private insurance company has essentially made their own determination of what level of obesity— determination of what level of obesity one would need to have in order— obesity one would need to have in order to _ obesity one would need to have in order to be eligible for the drugs — in order to be eligible for the drugs. and then, based on your specific— drugs. and then, based on your specific insurance plan, that would — specific insurance plan, that would be _ specific insurance plan, that would be the cap on how much can be — would be the cap on how much can be spent. i think really, what's _ can be spent. i think really, what's the most important thing we can_ what's the most important thing we can do— what's the most important thing we can do globally is leverage artificial— we can do globally is leverage artificial intelligence to reduce production costs of drugs _ reduce production costs of drugs like these to make them more _ drugs like these to make them more accessible.— more accessible. speaking of artificial intelligence - more accessible. speaking of artificial intelligence and - artificial intelligence and linking our topics together — in terms of the costs, if the

complications of obesity cost the nhs £11 billion a year, do you think it's worth giving consideration to actually making these sorts of drugs available to everybody that's eligible for them?— available to everybody that's eligible for them? clearly on a cost- benefit _ eligible for them? clearly on a cost-benefit analysis, - eligible for them? clearly on a cost-benefit analysis, when i eligible for them? clearly on a l cost-benefit analysis, when you cost—benefit analysis, when you acknowledge the real burden on the nhs of people who are overweight and the convocations that come from being overweight, to actually prescribe a drug that helps them lose weight can actually be real saving, and it's a false economy to deprive yourself of that. i can't help but think is that what we've done now is starting this debate about wiping fat, for a lot of people, is problematic. they are a lot of strain on you and on the nhs. and i think for most of us, do we really need a drug injected into our stomach to actually motivate ourselves to actually motivate ourselves to actually motivate ourselves to actually do what it takes to lose weight? and i'm a sceptic about drugs being the answer to

everything, it's about willpower in the end — and if drugs work for some people, great, but the idea that there are 3 million people in the uk economy waiting to injected drug in their belly, there are cheaper ways to do this, like the powers of persuasion. your thou . hts the powers of persuasion. your thoughts on — the powers of persuasion. your thoughts on that _ the powers of persuasion. your thoughts on that particular - thoughts on that particular question that was raised? it’s question that was raised? it's not too much _ question that was raised? it's not too much a _ question that was raised? it's not too much a question of motivating people. the real question is, why are so many people — question is, why are so many people overweight to begin with? — people overweight to begin with? what is our lifestyle, both — with? what is our lifestyle, both in _ with? what is our lifestyle, both in the united states and in great — both in the united states and in great britain that has seen this huge _ in great britain that has seen this huge trajectory increase in obesity rates in both countries? and i think we see a lot of— countries? and i think we see a lot of processed foods, sedentary lifestyles — of course _ sedentary lifestyles — of course genetics to play role but it's _ course genetics to play role but it's just one course genetics to play role but it'sjust one piece of the picture _ but it'sjust one piece of the picture. and so, we have to question. _ picture. and so, we have to question, do we just want to put a — question, do we just want to put a band—aid on the situation lry put a band—aid on the situation by essentially helping everybody get more access to weight — everybody get more access to weight loss drugs so they have an easier— weight loss drugs so they have an easier time managing their

weight? — an easier time managing their weight? 0rdo we an easier time managing their weight? or do we want to get to the core — weight? or do we want to get to the core of— weight? or do we want to get to the core of the situation where people — the core of the situation where people do not become — or so many— people do not become — or so many people do not become obese to begin _ many people do not become obese to begin with? ideally we'd like — to begin with? ideally we'd like to— to begin with? ideally we'd like to see those numbers going dowrr~ _ like to see those numbers going down. so— like to see those numbers going down, ., ,., like to see those numbers going down, ., y., “ down. so do you think there are better ways _ down. so do you think there are better ways of _ down. so do you think there are better ways of putting _ down. so do you think there are better ways of putting set - down. so do you think there are better ways of putting set of. better ways of putting set of that money to use, whether it's cookery lessons or whether it's looking at advertising for healthier food, looking at advertising for healthierfood, and so looking at advertising for healthier food, and so forth? looking at advertising for healthierfood, and so forth? i healthier food, and so forth? i think in the end — and it's hard to do this, i don't underestimate it, i have my own service with the health service, my late father was a doctor in the health service — people are vying to do things heroically, but nine times out of ten, they are dealing with the consequences of ill health, and the more of money that can be spent on preempting that moment and actually stopping people getting to the position where they are more likely to be in the first place, the longer the benefits for patients, health