British technology secretary Peter Kyle asked ChatGpt for advice on why artificial intelligence is so slow in the UK business community and which podcasts to appear on.

This week, Prime Minister Kiel Starmer said the UK government should make much more use of AI to improve efficiency. “We shouldn't spend substantial time on tasks where digital or AI can make it better, faster, the same high quality and standard.” He said.

now, New Scientist Kyle's record of ChatGpt usage is considered to be the world's first test under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, whether chatbot interactions are subject to such laws.

These records show that Kyle asked ChatGpt to explain why the UK Small Business (SMB) community is so slow to adopt AI. ChatGpt returned a 10-point list of issues that hinder adoption, including sections on “Limited Awareness and Understanding,” “Regulation and Ethical Concerns,” and “Less of Government or Institutional Support.”

The chatbot advised Kyle: “The UK government has launched initiatives to encourage AI adoption, but many SMBs have either been unaware of these programs or find it difficult to navigate. Limited access to funding or incentives for risky AI investments could also block adoption,” he said in regards to regulatory and ethical concerns. “Compliance with data protection laws such as GDPR, etc. [a data privacy law]which could be an important hurdle. SMBs may worry about legal and ethical issues related to the use of AI. ”

“As a minister in charge of AI, the Secretary of State uses this technology. A spokesman for the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), led by Kyle, said: “The government uses AI as a labor saving tool, supported by clear guidance on how to quickly and safely utilize technology.”

Kyle also used the chatbot in his canvas idea for media appearances, saying, “I am the Secretary of State for UK Science, Innovation and Technology. What is the best podcast for me to appear to reach a wide audience worthy of the responsibility of ministers?” ChatGpt proposed. Infinite salcage and Naked Scientistbased on the number of listeners.

In addition to seeking this advice, Kyle asked ChatGpt to define various terms related to his department: Antimatter, Quantum, and Digital Inclusion. Two experts New Scientist Regarding Quantum's definition of ChatGpt, he said he was surprised by the quality of the response. “In my opinion, this is surprisingly good.” Peter Night Imperial College London. “I don't think that's bad at all.” Christian Bonato at Heriot Watt University in Edinburgh, UK.

New Scientist Requested Kyle's recent data Interview with Politicshomepoliticians were explained “frequently” using chatgpt. He used it to “try to understand the broader context in which innovation came into being, the people who developed it, the organization behind them, and stated, “ChatGpt is fantastically superior and if there are places you really struggle to really get a deeper understanding, ChatGpt can be a very good tutor.”

DSIT initially refused The new scientistS FOI request, “Peter Kyle's ChatGPT history includes prompts and responses made in both personal and official abilities.” A sophisticated request was granted, with only prompts and responses made in official capabilities.

The fact that data was provided at all is a shock, and Tim Turner, a data protection expert based in Manchester, UK, thinks it may be the first case of a chatbot interaction being released under the FOI. “I'm amazed that you got them,” he says. “I would have thought they wanted to avoid precedent.”

This raises questions to governments with similar FOI laws, such as the United States. For example, ChatGpt is like an email or WhatsApp conversation. Both have been historically covered by FOI based on past precedents – or are they the results of search engine queries that traditionally organizations are likely to reject? Experts disagree with the answer.

“As a rule, if you can extract it from the departmental system, it will also cover the minister's Google search history,” says Jon Baines of the UK law firm Mishcon De Reya.

“Personally, I don't think ChatGpt is the same as Google search,” he says. John SlaterFOI expert. That's because Google search doesn't create new information, he says. “ChatGpt, on the other hand, “creates” something based on input from the user. ”

This uncertainty may make politicians want to avoid using personalized commercial AI tools like ChatGpt, Turner says. “It's a real can of worms,” ​​he says. “To cover their backs, politicians definitely need to use public tools provided by their departments to ensure that the public is an audience.”