Stay informed with free updates

Simply sign up to the Artificial intelligence myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.

The writer is executive director of the Aspen Strategy Group and a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution

While millions of lives have been saved through medical drugs, many thousands died during the 19th century by ingesting unsafe medicines sold by charlatans. Across the US and Europe this led to the gradual implementation of food and drug safety laws and institutes — including the US Food and Drug Administration — to ensure that the benefits outweigh the harms.

The rise of artificial intelligence large language models such as GPT-4 is turbocharging industries to make everything from scientific innovation to education to film-making easier and more efficient. But alongside enormous benefits, these technologies can also create severe national security risks. 

We wouldn’t allow a new drug to be sold without thorough testing for safety and efficacy, so why should AI be any different? Creating a “Food and Drug Administration for AI” may be a blunt metaphor, as the AI Now Institute has written, but it is time for governments to mandate AI safety testing.

The UK government under the former prime minister Rishi Sunak deserves real credit here: after just a year of Sunak taking office, the UK held the game-changing Bletchley Park AI Safety Summit, set up a relatively well-funded AI Safety Institute and screened five leading large language models.

The US and other countries such as Singapore, Canada and Japan are emulating the UK’s approach, but these efforts are still in their infancy. OpenAI and Anthropic are voluntarily allowing the US and UK to test their models, and should be commended for this. 

It is now time to go further. The most glaring gap in our current approach to AI safety is the lack of mandatory, independent and rigorous testing to prevent AI from doing harm. Such testing should only apply to the largest models, and be required before it is unleashed on to the public.

While drug testing can take years, the technical teams at the AI Safety Institute have been able to conduct narrowly focused tests in the span of a few weeks. Safety would not therefore meaningfully slow innovation.

Testing should focus specifically on the extent to which the model could cause tangible, physical harms, such as its ability to help create biological or chemical weapons and undermine cyber defences. It is also important to gauge whether the model is challenging for humans to control and capable of training itself to “jailbreak” out of the safety features designed to constrain it. Some of this has already happened — in February 2024 it was discovered that hackers working for China, Russia, North Korea and Iran had used OpenAI’s technology to carry out novel cyber attacks. 

While ethical AI and bias are critical issues as well, there is more disagreement within society about what constitutes such bias. Testing should thus initially focus on national security and physical harm to humans as the most pre-eminent threat posed by AI. Imagine, for example, if a terrorist group were to use AI-powered, self-driven vehicles to target and set off explosives, a fear voiced by Nato. 

Once they pass this initial testing, AI companies — much like those in the pharmaceutical industry — should be required to closely and consistently monitor the possible abuse of their models, and report misuse immediately. Again, this is standard practice in the pharmaceutical industry, and ensures that potentially harmful drugs are withdrawn.

In exchange for such monitoring and testing, companies that co-operate should receive a “safe harbour” to shield them from some legal liability. Both the US and UK legal systems have existing laws that balance the danger and utility of products such as engines, cars, drugs and other technologies. For example, airlines that have otherwise complied with safety regulations are usually not liable for the consequences of unforeseeable natural disasters.

If those building the AI refuse to comply, they should face penalties, just as pharmaceutical companies do if they withhold data from regulators. 

California is paving the way forward here: last month, the state’s legislature passed a bill — currently awaiting approval from Governor Gavin Newsom — requiring AI developers to create safety protocols to mitigate “critical harms”. If not overly onerous, this is a move in the right direction.  

For decades, robust reporting and testing requirements in the pharmaceutical sector have allowed for the responsible advancement of drugs that help, not harm, the human population. Similarly, while the AI Safety Institute in the UK and those elsewhere represent a crucial first step, in order to reap the full benefits of AI we need immediate, concrete action to create and enforce safety standards — before models cause real world harm.

A MAJOR outdoor fashion chain has launched an “everything must go” sale before closing one of its branches.

Trespass’ store in the Silverburn shopping centre, in Glasgow, Scotland will be shutting for the final time over the coming weeks.

1

The retailer sells ski wear, waterproof jackets, fleeces, festival accessories, walking boots and camping gear.

Signs have been put up in the shop window telling passersby that a 60% closing down sale has started.

The black and yellow signage reads: “Closing down. Everything must go.”

The Sun has contacted Trespass for comment.

Other recent closures in the area include  Angelique Lamont Bridal and Bridesmaids and popular Glaswegian nightclub The Shed.

It is not yet known what will replace the Tresspass store in the Silverburn shopping centre.

The Silverburn shopping centre has seen some other major changes in recent months.

Prominent brands that have recently opened at the centre, including AllSaints and Polestar.

And Mango opened its doors over the summer which further strengthened the fashion offer.

Kingpin Bowling is also set to join the line-up later this year, bolstering Silverburn’s leisure offer.

We also told how Cinnabon opened a new branch in Silverburn on Friday.

David Pierotti, General Manager at Silverburn, said: “We have been working hard to secure brilliant brands that we know people want to see and we’re so pleased that Cinnabon is the latest to join our lineup.

“It will complement our existing stores and restaurants, whilst giving people yet another new reason to visit us.

“We know that it will prove a massive hit with guests and look forward to the opening.”

More Trespass closures

 Trespass, which runs around 170 UK branches, confirmed last summer it would pull down the shutters on half a dozen branches.

Stores shut in Chesterfield and Workington while others in Canterbury and Solihull were also earmarked for closure.

In recent weeks, Trespass is closed its store in St Johns Precinct, Liverpool, after signs were placed in the window.

It is not the only outdoor clothing retailer to shutter branches across the UK.

Go Outdoors closed one of its shops in North Staffordshire in April with locals left gutted.

Closing down signs also went up in a Millets store in December last year.

It came after the Millets stores in Inverness and Mansfield shut their doors for good.

Some retailers have closed a few branches here and there for various reasons, like when a store lease has come to an end.

Other examples of one-off rather than widespread closures is when there are changes in the area, like a shopping centre closing.

In some cases a shop will shut if there are not enough shoppers in the area, but sometimes it may relocate to another place that’s busier nearby.

Some chains have faced tougher conditions though, forcing them to shut dozens of stores, or all of them in the worst case.

Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing money-sm@news.co.uk.

Plus, you can join our Sun Money Chats and Tips Facebook group to share your tips and stories

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

In 1975, Bill Gates and Paul Allen founded Microsoft in New Mexico. Four years later in 1979, the US suffered its worst nuclear power disaster at the Pennsylvania plant known as Three Mile Island. More than 40 years later, these unrelated events have, perhaps surprisingly, collided.

The current operator of Three Mile Island (TMI), Constellation Energy, has announced a deal with Microsoft to restart a reactor adjacent to, but distinct from, the accident site. It is set to deliver 835MW of power capacity for a data centre run by the software titan. Constellation and Microsoft are keen to describe the deal as a win for carbon-free “clean energy”. At the very least, Constellation Energy shareholders are seeing green. 

Constellation’s market cap has jumped by nearly $15bn to $80bn, in response to the deal. Since a spin-off from former parent Exelon in early 2022, its shares are up more than 200 per cent. Independent US power plant operators are riding high on an unusual confluence of factors where old-school technology — nuclear, natural gas, coal — is back in favour and deep-pocketed customers are able to pay top dollar for predictable output.

Constellation said the Microsoft deal showed “the power of competitive markets” where the company and Microsoft will be alone responsible for the near $2bn of cumulative capital expenditures to get TMI back online.

Constellation’s 2022 separation from Exelon left it as the power producer that generated electricity and took the risk of selling power at prevailing market prices. Exelon instead became a highly regulated, steady transmission and distribution utility whose consumer rates are set by states to earn a modest return on capital.

The TMI agreement with Microsoft is worth perhaps $115 per megawatt hour, according to analysts at Jefferies — perhaps twice or more the current market price of electricity. Jefferies pegs the impact of the Microsoft contract as worth a net present value of $3bn and an internal rate of return of 38 per cent, including debt capital. 

The huge jump in Constellation shares is rooted in the view that there could be more lucrative deals like Microsoft’s for the nuclear energy group to strike, along with accompanying new federal tax credits. Constellation has by far the largest nuclear fleet, a source of energy production that is suddenly in favour because of both its reliability and non-existent carbon footprint (leaving just the non-trivial matters of nuclear waste and safety).

The benefits of AI are, for now, unclear. But for many, its part in resurrecting nuclear power is a worthy externality all by itself.

This note has been amended to state that Microsoft was founded in New Mexico, not Mexico.

sujeet.indap@ft.com

MARTIN Lewis has revealed how to get 30 per cent off No7 Boots beauty products.

But the deal only runs for hours longer, so customers have been urged to get in quick.

2

2

Advertisement

Tweeted by Martin Lewis and shared on the Money Saving Expert (MSE) website, the pharmacy chain is trying to get people to sign up for its No7 beauty Advent calendars wait-list.

In return, they’re offering 30 per cent off No7 products – but the deal is only valid until 11:59pm tonight.

Those keen on snapping it up can fill in their details, and a code should appear on the same page as the sign-up box.

The code can be used on most No7 items, with a few exclusions.

Savvy shoppers can also maximise the discount by combining it with items that are offered in the three-for-two deal.

It means the first two items can be taken 30 per cent off, with the third free.

Using the example MSE gives, customers could buy:

• 1x Future Renew serum*,  50ml – £30.06 with the code, normally £42.95
• 1x Future Renew night cream*, 50ml – £24.46 with the code, normally £34.95
• 1x Future Renew day cream*,  50ml – free, normally £34.95

That would in total cost £54.42 – a huge £58.33 (52 per cent) off the normal £112.84.

But that’s not all.

Some items are half-price, in the three-for-two deal, and the additional 30 per cent can still be taken off.

In a money-saving trifecta, customers could for example claim:

• 1x Limited Edition lipstick* – £4.53 with the code, was £6.47, normally £12.95
• 1x Limited Edition lip glaze*, 3.3ml – £3.48 with the code, was £4.97, normally £9.95
• 1x Limited Edition lip liner*– free, was £3.97, normally £7.95

In total, those three items add up to just £8.01 instead of the normal price of £30.85 – a colossal £22.84 (74%) saving.

Customers are always urged check whether there is still stock and keep an eye out for other deals on the way.

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Struggling Wizz Air has conceded that its chief executive is unlikely to deliver on performance targets needed to earn a controversial £100mn bonus after a “parade of black swans” hammered its shares.

Shareholders in the London-listed low-cost airline have instead backed a new bonus scheme for József Váradi that includes a one-off share award worth around €2.3mn for this year, and the opportunity to earn around €4mn per year in shares as bonuses from 2026.

Stephen Johnson, interim chair of the remuneration committee, said on Wednesday that a new plan was needed to “motivate” and “retain” Varadi, who was “by far the worst compensated CEO” among his airline peers.

Wizz Air’s ambitious growth plans have been knocked by a string of crises, most notably the grounding of scores of its aircraft because of possible engine problems. Its shares have slumped 39 per cent this year, while those of BA owner IAG have risen by almost a third.

Váradi was paid a total of €1.4mn in Wizz Air’s 2024 financial year, down from €4mn in 2019. That compares with IAG chief executive Luis Gallego, who was paid £3.1mn in 2023, and easyJet’s Johan Lundgren who received £2.2mn. Both these companies have enjoyed a smoother ride as the industry has recovered from the pandemic.

Váradi, who was one of the airline’s founders in the early 2000s, has grown it into one of the most significant players in European aviation after masterminding a growth strategy that prioritises cutting operational costs.

Wizz Air offered Váradi a £100mn bonus in 2021 if he could raise its share price to £120 by 2026, with shareholders last year approving a change to give him until 2028 to achieve the target.

But with shares trading at £13.45 at close on Wednesday, Johnson told shareholders in notes accompanying its AGM notice that the old plan was “underwater” and the chances of Varadi hitting his targets were “remote”.

“József has been instrumental in leading the company to success . . . and the Board believes that it is essential that he be retained to lead the company through its challenges for the next few years. However, that objective is at risk,” Johnson said.

Váradi has promised to significantly grow the airline this decade, and is working towards a long-term target to grow passenger capacity by 20 per cent a year and have 500 aircraft by 2030, although he previously said this could slip to 2031 or 2032 because of supply chain problems.

The airline has been hurt by a large exposure to Ukraine, Russia and Israel, where operations have been disrupted by war. It has also been forced to ground around 45 planes, about a fifth of its fleet, because of potential problems with their Pratt & Whitney engines.

“Unfortunately, the parade of ‘black swans’ has continued,” Johnson said.

The old £100mn bonus scheme will still be in place, but any payouts from the newer scheme would be deducted from it.

The new scheme offers Varadi a one-off share award of three times his €775,00 base salary, worth €2.3mn, payable in October.

It also contains a new annual incentive plan from the 2026 fiscal year, worth up to five times his salary, or €3.9mn in shares at current levels.

Wizz Air suffered a sizeable shareholder rebellion at the AGM on Wednesday, where only 63 per cent of shareholder voted to support the changes.

In a statement, Wizz Air said: “The board is pleased that investors recognise the need for appropriate incentives for the CEO and management team during this period of significant external challenges for the company and the airline industry.”