A prominent tech entrepreneur who played a key role in shaping the UK Government’s AI strategy could be on track to profit from the very proposals he’s advocating for, sparking concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

Matt Clifford’s Role in AI Strategy and Copyright Proposal

Venture capitalist Matt Clifford, who was hired as an adviser to Sir Keir Starmer, played a pivotal part in developing the Government’s AI strategy.

His work led to the creation of a plan designed to harness the power of AI across various industries.

One of the more contentious aspects of the plan is a proposal to allow major tech companies to bypass copyright law when training their AI systems, which has drawn fierce opposition.

Despite taking up his advisory role last year, Clifford didn’t have to divest his significant stake in numerous tech businesses, including those in the AI sector.

As the chairman of Entrepreneur First, a firm he founded, he still holds investments in over 100 AI startups that could directly benefit from the policies he has helped shape.

Entrepreneur First’s Role and Potential Profits

Although Clifford declined to comment, sources indicate that he may have stepped down from certain companies that could have had a more direct financial stake in his AI advice.

However, his continued involvement with Entrepreneur First, which has invested in a range of AI startups, raises concerns about his potential to profit from the Government’s AI strategy.

Clifford was appointed as the lead reviewer for the AI Opportunities Action Plan by Sir Keir last year, and was later appointed as the Prime Minister’s personal AI adviser.

The plan, which he played a significant role in shaping, includes the controversial copyright exception.

Experts Raise Concerns About Conflict of Interest

Experts, including Sue Hawley from Spotlight on Corruption, have raised concerns about the clear conflict of interest in having an AI adviser who stands to gain personally from the policies they are recommending.

“There couldn’t be a clearer conflict of interest,” Hawley stated, emphasizing the need for proactive measures to address these concerns, such as divesting from firms that could benefit from the advice being given.

The Push for an AI Copyright Exception

The issue at the heart of this controversy is a proposed change in copyright law that would allow tech giants to use online content—whether it’s text, images, or music—freely to improve their AI systems, without compensating the original creators.

Creators would have to opt-out of allowing their work to be used in this way.

However, this proposal has faced backlash from Britain’s £126 billion creative sector, which employs over 2.4 million people.

Many in the industry are concerned that the change could decimate their livelihood and significantly impact the way creators are compensated for their work.

The Role of Tech Lobbying Groups and Concerns from Industry Leaders

Tom Shinner, Entrepreneur First’s COO, is also associated with a lobbying group pushing for the AI copyright exception.

This group, Startup Coalition, recently submitted evidence to the Department for Culture, Media and Sports urging the Government to adopt the proposal.

Their stance includes supporting a broad data-mining exception that would allow AI firms to scrape data freely, with few restrictions.

Tory MP Damian Collins, who formerly chaired the culture committee, expressed concern about the lack of representation for rights holders and creatives at the highest levels of government, especially when figures like Matt Clifford are heavily influencing the AI agenda.

Government’s Position on Copyright and AI Regulation

A spokesman for the Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology (DSIT) emphasized the Government’s commitment to creating a balanced copyright regime.

They assured that no decisions had been made yet, and that ministers—not Clifford—would ultimately be responsible for the decisions regarding the AI strategy.

In the meantime, the debate over whether or not AI firms should be allowed to scrape content without paying creators continues to divide both industry insiders and the public.

This article was published on TDPel Media. Thanks for reading!

Share on Facebook «||» Share on Twitter «||» Share on Reddit «||» Share on LinkedIn