MPs fear data centre boom could derail Miliband's net zero plans Ed Miliband has been urged to explain whether a planned boom in energy-hungry data centres have been factored into his plans to deliver net zero carbon emissions. In a letter to the energy secretary, Labour MP Toby Perkins, who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, said data centres are a key area of concern in hitting the emissions target. Data centres are giant facilities full of powerful computers used to run digital services, such as streaming and artificial intelligence (AI). The government has backed plans for many more to be built to help turn the UK into an AI superpower, despite the large amounts of electricity needed to run them, including from gas-powered generators. Perkins said it was concerning that the UK government was relying on a carbon-reduction plan that made no allowance for the impact of data centres.

Ofcom has launched an investigation into Elon Musk's X over concerns its AI tool Grok is being used to create sexualised images. In a statement, the UK watchdog said there had been deeply concerning reports of the chatbot being used to create and share undressed images of people, as well as sexualised images of children. If found to have broken the law, Ofcom can potentially issue X with a fine of up to 10% of its worldwide revenue or £18 million, whichever is greater. The BBC has approached X for comment. Elon Musk previously said the UK government wanted any excuse for censorship in response to a post questioning why other AI platforms were not being looked at.

The UK government has warned that X could be blocked after Grok AI was used to create sexual images without consent. The UK government has warned that X could be blocked after Grok AI was used to create sexual images without consent. Government signals support for possible Ofcom intervention on Grok as scrutiny of X's AI tool intensifies Elon Musk's X "is not doing enough to keep its customers safe online", a minister has said, as the UK government prepares to outline possible action against the platform over the mass production of sexualised images of woman and children. Peter Kyle, the business secretary, said the government would fully support any action taken by Ofcom, the media regulator, against X - including the possibility that the platform could be blocked in the UK. Kyle said Ofcom had received information it had requested from X as part of a fast-tracked investigation into the use of platform's built-in AI tool, Grok, to generate large numbers of manipulated images of people, often depicting them in minimal clothing or sexualised poses.

New Scientist changed the UK's freedom of information laws in 2025 By requesting copies of the then-UK technology secretary's ChatGPT logs, New Scientist set a precedent for how freedom of information laws apply to chatbot interactions, helping to hold governments to account Our successful request for Peter Kyle's ChatGPT logs stunned observers When I fired off an email at the start of 2025, I hadn't intended to set a legal precedent for how the UK government handles its interactions with AI chatbots, but that is exactly what happened. It all began in January when I read an interview with the then-UK tech secretary Peter Kyle in . Trying to suggest he used first-hand the technology his department was set up to regulate, Kyle said that he would often have conversations with ChatGPT. AI may blunt our thinking skills - here's what you can do about it That got me wondering: could I obtain his chat history? Freedom of information (FOI) laws are often deployed to obtain emails and other documents produced by public bodies, but past precedent has suggested that some private data - such as search queries - aren't eligible for release in this way. I was interested to see which way the chatbot conversations would be categorised.

The boss of the firm behind ChatGPT and the UK technology secretary discussed a multibillion-pound deal to give the entire country premium access to the AI tool, the Guardian has learned. Sam Altman, a co-founder of OpenAI, talked to Peter Kyle about a potential agreement to give UK residents access to its advanced product. According to two sources with direct knowledge of the meeting, the idea was floated as part of a broader discussion in San Francisco about opportunities for collaboration between OpenAI and the UK. Those close to the discussion say Kyle never really took the idea seriously, not least because it could have cost as much as 2bn. OpenAI offers free and subscription versions of ChatGPT.

Ministers are facing calls for greater transparency about public data that may be shared with the US tech company OpenAI after the government signed a wide-ranging agreement with the 300m ( 222m) company that critics compared to letting a fox into a henhouse. Chi Onwurah, the chair of the House of Commons select committee on science, innovation and technology, warned that Monday's sweeping memorandum of understanding between OpenAI's chief executive, Sam Altman, and the technology secretary, Peter Kyle, was "very thin on detail" and called for guarantees that public data would remain in the UK and clarity about how much of it OpenAI would have access to. The deal paves the way for the Silicon Valley firm behind ChatGPT to explore deploying advanced AI technology in areas including justice, defence and security, and education. It includes OpenAI and the government "partnering to develop safeguards that protect the public and uphold democratic values". Kyle said he wanted Britain to be "front and centre when it comes to developing and deploying AI" and "this can't be achieved without companies like OpenAI".

Google has agreed a sweeping deal with the UK government to provide free technology to the public sector from the NHS to local councils– a move campaigners have called "dangerously naive". The US company will be asked to "upskill" tens of thousands of civil servants in technology, including in using artificial intelligence, as part of an agreement which will not require the government to pay. It is considered in Whitehall to be giving Google "a foot in the door" as the digitisation of public services accelerates. However, the agreement prompted concerns about the precariousness of UK public data being held on US servers amid the unpredictable leadership of Donald Trump. The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) said Google Cloud, which provides databases, machine learning and computing power, had "agreed to work with the UK government in helping public services use advanced tech to shake off decades old'ball and chain' legacy contracts which leave essential services vulnerable to cyber-attack". Google's services are considered more agile and efficient than traditional competitors, but there are concerns in Whitehall's digital circles about the government becoming locked into a new kind of dependency.

An AI tool has been used to review public responses to a government consultation for the first time and is now set to be rolled out more widely in an effort to save money and staff time. The tool, named "Consult", was first used by the Scottish government when it was seeking perspectives on the regulation of non-surgical cosmetic procedures such as lip filler. The UK government said the tool analysed responses and was able to produce results identical to human officials, and will now be used to review responses from other consultations, while also being developed further. While reviewing more than 2,000 responses, Consult identified key themes, which were then checked and refined by experts in the Scottish government. The government built Consult to be among its new package of AI tools, nicknamed "Humphrey", which they claim will "speed up work in Whitehall and cut back on consulting spending".

The letter asked Lisa Nandy, the secretary of state for culture, media and sport, to summon Meta senior executives to parliament. "There is a longstanding contractual obligation that when third parties make use of an author's work they compensate us," said McDermid when asked why she signed the letter. "Adaptation, translation, photocopying – they all accept the duty to recompense us for making their work possible. "I'm a crime writer – I understand theft when I see it. And by using pirated material, Meta are stealing from us twice over.

More than 30 performing arts leaders in the UK, including the bosses of the National Theatre, Opera North and the Royal Albert Hall, have joined the chorus of creative industry concern about the government's plans to let artificial intelligence companies use artists' work without permission. They also urged the government to support the "moral and economic rights" of the creative community in music, dance, drama and opera. The 35 signatories of the statement include the chief executives of the Sadler's Wells dance theatre, the Royal Shakespeare Company, the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra and the Leeds Playhouse. The performing arts bosses added that they embraced advances in technology and were "participants" in innovation, but stated the government's plans risked undermining their ability to participate in the development and deployment of AI. Critics of the opt out plan have described it as unfair and impractical.