When the government released its Autumn Statement, the renewed focus on AI and quantum caught my attention. £500m pledged to AI to “support the UK’s world-leading scientists and AI researchers to continue to make extraordinary new discoveries, benefitting all of society”, as well as a commitment to launch the UK’s five quantum missions.

While this investment is well-meaning, in reality it’s a big misfire. Some experts say the UK government came good for the sector — I’d say they’ve blown their money.

What about the deep tech sectors that will have a real impact on society and the economy?

Let’s face it, as impressive as AI applications like ChatGPT are in planning our holiday or writing our university assignments, the technology is ultimately overhyped and oversaturated. Almost every founder and VC across the globe wants in on the action. And despite the UK’s ambitions, the US government has already asserted itself as the dominant player, having pledged a world record $250bn to the tech.

Besides, even if AI is going to change the world, Microsoft or Google are poised to lead the way – especially after Microsoft’s partnership with ChatGPT pioneer Open AI.

There’s also still the debate about how we can utilise the technology. Don’t get me wrong; generative AI has its novelty. But whenever I hear someone talk about AI, I mentally substitute it with the term “statistics”. Because, when you think about it, that’s all AI is. Its utility is often highly dependent on the user’s predominant knowledge, and the tech ultimately offers nothing truly new. Currently AI can replicate and reproduce, but not create.

Yes, I appreciate AI has its uses within automation and machine learning, but until new startups can demonstrate a business model where the technology is genuinely as transformative as it’s been hyped to be, the government, founders, and investors would probably be much better utilising their capital and skills elsewhere.

And then there’s quantum computing. Some experts predict we won’t see a quantum computer until as late as 2040 – and some have good theoretical reasons why we might never have an operational quantum computer. It’s always good to plan for the long-term, but not when placing bets on a technology unlikely to have impact for at least a decade comes at the expense of finding solutions for issues we’re facing right now.

It doesn’t take a scientist to tell you that energy conservation, the climate crisis, health, and food production are some of the greatest areas where technological innovation would be most welcomed. And still, the government’s scientific advisors have missed the mark.

I fail to understand why investment hasn’t been set aside to strengthen research into green technologies. They have the potential to decarbonise industries, support energy storage, and contribute to the transition to a sustainable energy system. Yet, despite them potentially solving the most pressing problem of our generation, the government is betting the farm on what is currently a fancy autocomplete technology.  And this issue isn’t just in the UK but extends throughout labs in Europe and elsewhere.

Recommended reading

• EU Considers Five Year Ban on Facial Recognition Tech
• UK Coalition Calls for “Immediate Stop” to Live Facial Recognition Surveillance
• Survey Reveals Women Put Off Tech by Age 15

One glaring issue is that UK universities, our core source of talent and innovation, are seriously cash-strapped. In 2010, funding peaked at £15bn. But over the years, investment has steadily fallen to just £4.5bn in 2023. If this trend continues, staff-student ratios will worsen, facilities will deteriorate, and our ability to attract investment and world-class research will dissipate.

The situation we’re in mostly stems from a lack of domain-specific knowledge in government. The Chancellor has been set on making swift decisions with the assumption that, if you commit funding to an industry, success is guaranteed. But the government should be making a greater effort to listen to university spinouts, tech startups, researchers, and graduates across the tech sector to identify where funding is most needed.

The fact the UK leads deep tech investment in Europe also may result in some complacency. We still have a big problem scaling companies until they bear fruit. Too many high-potential deep technology startups relocated to the US to commercialise their firms because late-stage funding in the UK remains lower than we might hope.

There are some noble exceptions among VC firms but the lack of funding for deep techs in the UK is largely down to VC risk tolerance being lower in the UK compared to the States. This is due primarily to the government’s hesitancy to create supportive policies, incentivise private investment, and promote collaboration between the public and private sectors. This would ensure the UK’s leadership in deep tech investment translates into sustained economic growth and innovation.

Founders and employees of deep tech startups often play pivotal roles in nurturing new ventures. If these figures relocate abroad, deep tech founders lose valuable access to the knowledge and resources for growth. Moreover, we also risk compromising our influence in security-sensitive sectors when strategic technologies, specifically in encryption and cybersecurity, are surrendered.

Setting the right direction of our science ecosystem is critical. AI might have potential, and quantum could transform innovation and research, but with many other high-impact technologies on the brink of mass change, the government has to reconsider its priorities.