Sir Simon Clarke is the Director of Onward.
There is understandable concern in Parliament about the rise of uncontrollable AI.
The various cautionary interventions by leading AI developers in recent weeks were a true landmark moment, and these risks must be taken seriously. But they mustn’t be allowed to distract from the broader competition risks to consumers and businesses as AI is rapidly deployed across the economy.
The UK needs a safe and level playing field for AI companies. Without genuine choice, one company will lock-in the benefits of AI for themselves.
If a clearer signal were needed that this risk exists, just look at Google’s latest financial results. Its parent company reported its 12th consecutive quarter of double-digit growth, boosted by Google Cloud which more than tripled its earnings. According to their own CEO, one in every nine people globally are active users of Google Gemini every month. The implication is clear – Google is on track to build a monopoly, just as it did in search.
As AI develops, and adoption spreads, if Google continues to be a verb, then we’ll know the battle for choice has been lost.
Innovation flourishes best when markets remain genuinely competitive. Learning the lessons from lock-ins that developed tech sectors such as search, the greatest risk to AI adoption is that it comes to be controlled by too few companies.
Given the impact that AI will have there is surprisingly little research on public attitudes towards choice in AI – something that Onward has sought to change this autumn together with our partners at Merlin Strategy.
In polling we’ve published, we found that the British public instinctively understands the importance of choice.
Overall, the public are optimistic about the potential of AI and increasingly using it in their daily lives. Yet they are equally determinedly opposed to a single company deciding which AI services they can access, how they use them, or what information they receive.
Nearly seven in ten people believe the Government should act to prevent any one company becoming dominant in AI. Almost six in ten believe consumers – not device manufacturers or software platforms – should decide which AI assistant is installed or set as the default on their phones and computers. And more than two-thirds believe fair competition between multiple AI developers is essential.
These are not anti-business instincts. They are profoundly pro-market ones. Freedom to choose is the biggest driver of experimentation, innovation and ultimately success.
The free market has never meant accepting monopolies or allowing dominant firms to erect barriers to new challengers. It means ensuring that competition remains open, innovation is rewarded and consumers are free to choose the products that best meet their needs.
The influence of large AI companies like Google on online search has long been highlighted by campaign groups including Consumer Voice and publisher associations. Last year, the European Commission opened investigations into Meta and Google’s conduct in relation to generative AI assistants. Earlier this year, the Commission said Meta would need to allow AI chatbots operated by rival companies to use WhatsApp for free. It fined Google €890 million for giving preferential treatment to its own services on Google Search and restricting consumer options for cheaper alternatives.
We found that more than seven in ten Britons believe the UK Government should be investigating how Google and Meta are deploying AI. Yet, at present, there has been no action from the Competition and Markets Authority.
Onward’s clear view is that ministers should pay close attention to how AI is distributed through operating systems, search engines, smartphones and other digital platforms. If consumers are steered towards a single AI assistant simply because it comes pre-installed or cannot easily be replaced, genuine competition will be weakened before it has even begun.
The public understands the consequences. Nearly two-thirds believe that a dominant AI company would, ultimately, lead to higher prices.
We must learn the lessons of the last 20 years in digital markets. We must prevent companies controlling access to consumers and training data. AI’s success should depend on building the best products and winning on merit, not limiting consumer choice to one provider.
We should back enterprise and celebrate technological progress. At the same time, we should defend the principles that make capitalism work: competition, consumer sovereignty and freedom of choice.
Sir Simon Clarke is the Director of Onward.
There is understandable concern in Parliament about the rise of uncontrollable AI.
The various cautionary interventions by leading AI developers in recent weeks were a true landmark moment, and these risks must be taken seriously. But they mustn’t be allowed to distract from the broader competition risks to consumers and businesses as AI is rapidly deployed across the economy.
The UK needs a safe and level playing field for AI companies. Without genuine choice, one company will lock-in the benefits of AI for themselves.
If a clearer signal were needed that this risk exists, just look at Google’s latest financial results. Its parent company reported its 12th consecutive quarter of double-digit growth, boosted by Google Cloud which more than tripled its earnings. According to their own CEO, one in every nine people globally are active users of Google Gemini every month. The implication is clear – Google is on track to build a monopoly, just as it did in search.
As AI develops, and adoption spreads, if Google continues to be a verb, then we’ll know the battle for choice has been lost.
Innovation flourishes best when markets remain genuinely competitive. Learning the lessons from lock-ins that developed tech sectors such as search, the greatest risk to AI adoption is that it comes to be controlled by too few companies.
Given the impact that AI will have there is surprisingly little research on public attitudes towards choice in AI – something that Onward has sought to change this autumn together with our partners at Merlin Strategy.
In polling we’ve published, we found that the British public instinctively understands the importance of choice.
Overall, the public are optimistic about the potential of AI and increasingly using it in their daily lives. Yet they are equally determinedly opposed to a single company deciding which AI services they can access, how they use them, or what information they receive.
Nearly seven in ten people believe the Government should act to prevent any one company becoming dominant in AI. Almost six in ten believe consumers – not device manufacturers or software platforms – should decide which AI assistant is installed or set as the default on their phones and computers. And more than two-thirds believe fair competition between multiple AI developers is essential.
These are not anti-business instincts. They are profoundly pro-market ones. Freedom to choose is the biggest driver of experimentation, innovation and ultimately success.
The free market has never meant accepting monopolies or allowing dominant firms to erect barriers to new challengers. It means ensuring that competition remains open, innovation is rewarded and consumers are free to choose the products that best meet their needs.
The influence of large AI companies like Google on online search has long been highlighted by campaign groups including Consumer Voice and publisher associations. Last year, the European Commission opened investigations into Meta and Google’s conduct in relation to generative AI assistants. Earlier this year, the Commission said Meta would need to allow AI chatbots operated by rival companies to use WhatsApp for free. It fined Google €890 million for giving preferential treatment to its own services on Google Search and restricting consumer options for cheaper alternatives.
We found that more than seven in ten Britons believe the UK Government should be investigating how Google and Meta are deploying AI. Yet, at present, there has been no action from the Competition and Markets Authority.
Onward’s clear view is that ministers should pay close attention to how AI is distributed through operating systems, search engines, smartphones and other digital platforms. If consumers are steered towards a single AI assistant simply because it comes pre-installed or cannot easily be replaced, genuine competition will be weakened before it has even begun.
The public understands the consequences. Nearly two-thirds believe that a dominant AI company would, ultimately, lead to higher prices.
We must learn the lessons of the last 20 years in digital markets. We must prevent companies controlling access to consumers and training data. AI’s success should depend on building the best products and winning on merit, not limiting consumer choice to one provider.
We should back enterprise and celebrate technological progress. At the same time, we should defend the principles that make capitalism work: competition, consumer sovereignty and freedom of choice.