Letter to the Rt Hon Kanishka Narayan MP. - UK Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence.

Dear Mr Narayan,

Britain's Future as an Intelligent Nation — A British Intellectual-Property Portfolio and Thirty Frameworks for Intelligence

I am writing to introduce GENERAL INTELLIGENCE PLC, a Scottish company established in 1896 and to bring to your attention a substantial portfolio of British intellectual property concerned with intelligence, artificial intelligence and the development of intelligent systems. Your ministerial responsibilities encompass an unusually broad and consequential range of issues: the UK's artificial intelligence strategy, national technological capability, sovereign AI, economic development, security, public-sector adoption and the wider integration of artificial intelligence into the British economy. I believe there is an important dimension to this agenda which merits consideration: the distinction between developing increasingly capable artificial intelligence and developing the wider intellectual, institutional and economic capabilities required to make effective use of it.

The question of intelligence

Artificial intelligence is frequently discussed in terms of computing power, models, algorithms, data, infrastructure and the speed of technological progress. These are essential considerations. However, they do not, individually or collectively, answer a more fundamental question: what does it mean for a country, an institution or an organisation to become more intelligent? The distinction matters. A country may possess advanced artificial intelligence infrastructure without necessarily possessing the institutional capability to use it effectively. A business may acquire sophisticated AI systems without improving the quality of its decisions. A public institution may automate processes without necessarily improving its understanding of the people it serves. The development of technology and the development of intelligence are related, but they are not identical. Our central proposition is: Artificial intelligence is a means, not an end. The ultimate objective should be to improve the capacity of individuals, organisations and institutions to understand, reason, learn, decide, adapt and create value. Artificial intelligence should contribute to those objectives, rather than become an end in itself. This is not an argument against technological progress. It is an argument for placing technological progress within a wider conception of intelligence, capability and national advantage.

GENERAL INTELLIGENCE PLC

GENERAL INTELLIGENCE PLC has been concerned with intelligence and its applications for a considerable period. The company is Scottish and was established in 1896. Its current work includes artificial intelligence consultancy and the development of intellectual property relating to intelligence across a wide range of disciplines and commercial sectors. The company's portfolio comprises thirty named intelligence-related consultancy frameworks and more than one hundred additional intelligence-related intellectual-property assets. The company's work is founded on the view that intelligence should be understood more broadly than the technological systems currently described as artificial intelligence. It encompasses the ability to interpret information, distinguish significance, exercise judgement, understand consequences, make decisions, learn from experience and apply knowledge constructively.

Thirty frameworks

The company's thirty consultancy frameworks provide structured intellectual approaches to intelligence in different contexts. They are not thirty AI products, foundation models or deployed software systems. They are consultancy frameworks and intellectual-property assets, developed to address the application and understanding of intelligence across different sectors.

The portfolio comprises:

  1. ABSOLUTE INTELLIGENCE® — Chartered financial analysts and investment analysis.
  2. ADAPTIVE INTELLIGENCE® — General insurance.
  3. ALTERNATIVE INTELLIGENCE® — Alternative investment analysis.
  4. APPLIED INTELLIGENCE® — Insurance underwriting.
  5. AUGMENTED® — Insurance.
  6. AUTHENTIC® — Specialist insurance.
  7. AUTONOMOUS® — Life assurance.
  8. AUTOTELIC® — Yacht insurance.
  9. BIONIC INTELLIGENCE® — Managing general agents.
  10. EMBODIED INTELLIGENCE® — Personal accident insurance.
  11. ENTERPRISE INTELLIGENCE® — Enterprise organisations.
  12. EXPONENTIAL INTELLIGENCE® — Redundancy insurance.
  13. FRONTIER INTELLIGENCE® — Offshore energy insurance.
  14. GENERAL INTELLIGENCE® — Asset management.
  15. GENIUS® — Investment banking.
  16. GENUINE INTELLIGENCE® — Jewellers' block insurance.
  17. HYPERINTELLIGENCE® — Commercial banking.
  18. INFINITE INTELLIGENCE® — Kidnap and ransom insurance.
  19. INTELLIGENCE® — Retail banking.
  20. NEURAL INTELLIGENCE® — General insurance agencies.
  21. REAL INTELLIGENCE® — Fine art and specie insurance.
  22. RECURSIVE INTELLIGENCE® — Reinsurance organisations.
  23. REFLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE® — Reinsurance brokers.
  24. SENTIENT® — Financial advisory.
  25. SINGULARITY® — General insurance.
  26. SUPERHUMAN® — Risk management.
  27. SUPERINTELLIGENCE® — Financial technology.
  28. TRUE INTELLIGENCE® — Chartered financial planners.
  29. UNIVERSAL INTELLIGENCE® — Film and television production insurance.
  30. X® — Building societies.

The breadth of the portfolio is intentional. It reflects the proposition that intelligence is relevant to virtually every part of the economy, not simply to the businesses developing artificial intelligence technologies.

A broader national AI agenda

I believe there are five related questions which deserve attention as the Government develops its approach to artificial intelligence.

1. Technological capability and national intelligence

How should the United Kingdom measure its progress? Investment in compute, data infrastructure, research, advanced models and specialist companies is indispensable. However, national capability should also be assessed by the extent to which these resources improve the quality of decisions, institutional performance, scientific discovery, productivity and economic opportunity. The objective should be a country which can develop, understand, govern and apply advanced technology, rather than one which simply consumes it.

2. Intellectual property and national ownership

The United Kingdom should pay close attention to the intellectual property it creates and the long-term economic value that can be derived from it. The development of sovereign AI capability is not exclusively a question of computing infrastructure or the ownership of technology companies. It also concerns the ownership, protection, development and commercial exploitation of intellectual property, specialist knowledge and original ideas. British intellectual property should have the opportunity to become the foundation of British commercial activity, with the potential to generate value internationally.

3. Intelligence and economic productivity

The economic contribution of artificial intelligence should ultimately be assessed by what it enables organisations to achieve. Adoption figures and the number of systems deployed are not, in themselves, sufficient measures of success. More meaningful considerations include improvements in productivity, the quality of decision-making, the use of resources, customer outcomes, innovation, resilience and long-term competitiveness. There is an opportunity to place greater emphasis on the development of intelligent organisations, rather than treating AI adoption as an objective in isolation.

4. Security, accountability and judgement

As artificial intelligence systems become more capable and autonomous, questions of security, accountability and control become increasingly important. The ability to establish who is responsible for decisions, understand the limitations of systems, assess their outputs and intervene when necessary must develop alongside technological capability. The challenge is not simply to build more capable systems, but to ensure that their application remains understandable, proportionate and consistent with the responsibilities of the organisations using them.

5. The relationship between human and artificial intelligence

The future should not be framed solely as a contest between human and artificial intelligence. The more productive question is how different forms of intelligence can be combined to improve understanding, judgement, creativity, discovery and performance. This requires serious consideration of the respective strengths, limitations and responsibilities of people and machines. The development of increasingly capable artificial intelligence should encourage a more sophisticated understanding of intelligence itself.

A contribution to the national discussion

I recognise that the Government's responsibilities in this area are extensive and that your role requires coordination across departments, institutions, industry and the research community. I am not suggesting that GENERAL INTELLIGENCE PLC's frameworks should replace existing Government policy, technical standards, research programmes or regulatory arrangements. Nor am I suggesting that the portfolio, simply by virtue of its existence, constitutes a national AI capability or establishes a case for public funding. My purpose is to bring a substantial body of British intellectual property to your attention and to suggest that its underlying subject matter may have relevance to the wider development of the UK's artificial intelligence agenda. There may be value in examining how the frameworks could contribute to the understanding and application of intelligence within particular industries, organisations and institutional settings. There may also be opportunities to develop the intellectual property further, in conjunction with appropriate commercial, research and technology partners. I would particularly welcome consideration of the relationship between artificial intelligence, general intelligence and institutional intelligence and the implications of that relationship for Britain's long-term technological and economic development.

A British opportunity

GENERAL INTELLIGENCE PLC has a history extending back to 1896. Its intellectual-property portfolio has been developed over an extended period and reflects a sustained interest in intelligence as a subject in its own right. I believe the United Kingdom should aspire to contribute to the development of intelligence in its broadest sense: through scientific research, technological innovation, intellectual property, commercial enterprise, institutional capability and the responsible application of increasingly sophisticated systems. The opportunity is not simply to become a country which uses artificial intelligence extensively. It is to become a country which understands it, develops it, applies it intelligently and derives lasting economic and institutional benefit from it. That is a considerably broader ambition and one which I believe merits serious consideration. I would welcome the opportunity to provide you with a fuller presentation of GENERAL INTELLIGENCE PLC, its intellectual-property portfolio and its thirty consultancy frameworks. I would also be pleased to discuss whether the company's work could make a constructive contribution to the wider national discussion.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours sincerely,

X from GENERAL INTELLIGENCE PLC

X is a registered trade mark of GENERAL INTELLIGENCE PLC.
It was registered in 1896 with company number: SC003234