B3: Ethical Regulation and Approach to Artificial Intelligence

Metadata of the motion
Consultation:	Winter General Meeting 2026
Agenda item:	3. Motions of Policy and Organisation
Proposer:	Isaac Short (Durham Green Party)
Status:	Published
Submitted:	01/15/2026, 09:34

Motion text

The Young Greens Note That:

"AI” in this motion refers to any technology that fits under the
Britannica definition: the ability of a digital computer or computer-
controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent
beings.

AI has a number of ethical challenges. This includes issues such as energy
use and the related carbon emissions, the use of water for cooling,
methods of obtaining training data and how it may affect our lives and
methods of learning.

AI has already become a part of everyday life, and nothing can be done to
reverse that or get rid of it.

The Young Greens Believe That:

AI has the potential to be an existential threat to humanity if not
properly regulated.

If properly regulated, AI has the potential to be an incredible force for
good and further the living standards of humanity, potentially on the
scale of the industrial revolution and the invention of the internet.

Any investments into AI should be to the benefit and not to the detriment
of ordinary people. This includes the environmental, economic and social
impacts. Any benefits to business should be felt by employees, not CEOs or
shareholders.

AI data centres should be built to be self-powered using renewable energy
as much as possible. This includes the use of solar panels, wind farms and
hydro-electric power.

All sources of water and coolant should be considered when choosing a
cooling method for data centres. The environmental impact and impact on
nearby resident should be prioritised. Wherever possible, this should not
be sourced from drinking water.

AI should be used as a tool to make human lives easier. It should not be
used in any context to replace humans.

Disinformation generated by AI has the potential to seriously harm
democracy and personal lives. It is vital robust protections against this
are developed.

Education around AI is vital to it being understood and utilised
effectively. This should begin from KS2 and be integrated into the
national curriculum. Education should also be provided to anyone currently
above the age of KS2 who may want it, and should be provided free of
charge by the state. Education should cover but not be limited to how to
use AI effectively and how to spot AI generated content, particularly in a
political context.

There has been widespread use of AI in unethical ways that needs to be
regulated against. This includes but is not limited to:
- Generating images of women without their consent that undress them
  based off publicly available images of them that were not intended
  for this purpose.
- Deliberately biasing generative chatbots and then claiming their
  outputs as facts.
- Being used to create poor or incorrect resources in an educational
  setting.
- Autonomous weapons.
- Advanced facial recognition.
- Scientific papers being written by generative AI.

There is a risk of the internet becoming a “dead internet”, where human-
generated media is vastly outnumbered by AI-generated media. This could
lead to the internet itself becoming unusable, and future AIs being
trained on AI generated medial, leading to a significant decrease in the
quality of AI.

The companies and CEOs of companies should be held responsible for the
impacts and harm caused by their use and/or creation of AIs.

The Young Greens Resolve:

To call for significant and robust regulations, that ensures the use and
development is ethical as outlined by the beliefs in this motion.

To call for legal framework that holds companies and their CEOs legally
responsible for the impact of AIs they develop and/or use.

To call for all AI generated media to legally have to be disclosed in a
clear and obvious manner wherever it is used.

To call for state-funded educational programs open to all to create an
“AI-literate” general populous, where people understand the pros and cons
of the use of AI, how to use it ethically as outlined in the beliefs of
this motion, and how to be able to differentiate between AI and human made
media.

To call for “AI-literacy” to be integrated into the national curriculum,
to ensure future generations are “AI-literate”, where children understand
the pros and cons of the use of AI, how to use it ethically as outlined in
the beliefs of this motion, and how to be able to differentiate between AI
and human made media

To advocate for the use of AI only when it is ethically viable, as
outlined in the beliefs this motion.

To discourage the use of AI until such a time where it is ethically
viable, as outline in the beliefs of this motion

To support the arts and other industries that are affected by AI.

To call for AI to be used as a tool by humans, and for it never to replace
humans.

To call for redundancies due to AI to be made illegal.

To support and advocate for motions and policies submitted to the Green
Party of England and Wales that promote the ethical use of AI that does
not contradict the included beliefs in this motion.

To support and advocate for wider laws that promote the ethical use of AI
that does not contradict the included beliefs in this motion.

To advocate against any motions or policies submitted to the Green Party
of England and Wales that promote the use of AI that contradicts the
included beliefs in this motion.

To advocate against wider laws that promote the use of AI that contradicts
the included beliefs in this motion.

Supporters

Lyla Nellist (London Green Party)
Louis Appleyard (Leeds Green Party)

Amendments

none

Comments

01/29/2026

Manu Teague-Sharpe:

I agree with much of this motion. My main contention is the parts about AI never replacing humans. For things such as art and music, I fully agree. For things such as repetitive tasks or even more advanced scientific research, it seems reasonable to allow humans to be replaced if AI can do the tasks well and if the benefits are shared fairly in society

02/04/2026

Isaac Short:

Hey Manu, I partly agree with this. The only thing I will say is that AI is not accurate enough to do any of these tasks perfectly, so will always need human oversight, so the current people doing it would move from doing the actual work, to overseeing AI as it does that work. So AI is not replacing them but shifting their responsibilities, and so not in the scope of this motion, if that makes sense?

01/30/2026

Samuel Hall:

Hi, I’d like to comment on this motion as someone who works professionally as an AI/ML Research Scientist.

I strongly resonate with the concerns and values expressed here, particularly around ethics, environmental impact, and social responsibility. However, in its current form, I am concerned that this motion will be very difficult to translate into clear, actionable policy.

Firstly, the definition of “AI” used is extremely broad and vague. The definition — “the ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings” — could reasonably be interpreted to include technologies as simple as calculators. This makes meaningful regulation challenging.

A more useful definition would focus on the specific technologies that have driven modern AI adoption, particularly machine learning and neural networks. For example: software that produces outputs using stochastic, data-driven prediction methods, including technologies such as neural networks, large language models, and diffusion models. This would clearly distinguish modern AI systems from conventional deterministic software.

On environmental sustainability, I strongly agree with the emphasis on renewable energy and responsible cooling. These are among the strongest and most concrete elements of the motion, and they represent areas where meaningful regulation is genuinely achievable.

The sections on education and AI literacy are well intentioned, but I believe they underestimate the scale of the challenge. Teaching people “how to spot AI-generated content” is effectively an ongoing arms race against major technology companies. Similar challenges are currently addressed by specialist organisations such as GCHQ and related intelligence agencies. Expecting this to be comprehensively taught at KS2 level places a very significant burden on an already overstretched education system.

I also agree that AI-generated disinformation poses serious risks to democracy and personal lives. However, it is unclear why this concern is limited only to AI-generated disinformation. All disinformation is harmful, regardless of how it is produced, and policy should reflect this broader reality.

Overall, I feel this motion attempts to address too many complex issues at once under a loosely defined banner of “ethical AI.” Several points overlap or repeat, and this weakens its practical impact.

I would encourage a more focused approach, prioritising a smaller number of clearly defined, enforceable goals. For example:

Ensuring AI infrastructure is powered and cooled using renewable resources

Establishing clear accountability standards for developers and operators

Supporting transparent and responsible deployment in public services

By narrowing the scope and improving technical clarity, this motion could become far more effective in shaping meaningful and realistic policy.

02/04/2026

Isaac Short:

Hi Samuel, just for a bit of context I am currently an undergraduate student, studying computer science, so I am also currently studying AI (although by the sounds of it not to the complexity you are).

I get your point around the definition used, but it is extremely difficult to find a precise enough definition that is widely accepted, hence why I used this one. I do agree it has potential to be misconstrued, but felt it was better than the alternative. I don't believe simply targeting LLMs and neural networks will be affective, as there are other technologies that people often class as "AI" that is harmful. This motion also only targets technologies that are harmful, so something like a calculator I believe would be outside the scope of this motion.

On the education point, I am also aware it is increasingly difficult to distinguish and separate AI generated media from human creation. However, I believe it to be sensible to call for children in secondary school to be given every possible tool to be able to do. What this is not calling for is every child to become an expert, thats obviously ridiculous, but instead point to things like Google's AI checker.

On disinformation, obviously all disinformation is bad, but this motion is focused on AI, and so only AI generated disinformation is targeted. If there is to be a broader focus on disinformation, that should come in the form of a separate motion focused on disinformation.

Thanks for the feedback on my motion, I am aware it may not be perfect but I believe there is no such thing as a perfect motion. I believe this to steer the Young Greens in the right direction on a critical topic. I hope this has addressed some of your concerns.

02/03/2026

Bronwen Hopkins:

I share many of the concerns around the (growing) ecosystem burden of AI, the threat it poses to accessing reliable information, and the concentration of ownership of AI technologies by major tech companies. I do however agree with the comment above that this resolution is too broad. In terms of achievable specifics, why not call for legal framework that holds companies and their CEOs legally responsible *as publishers* for the AI generated content shared on their platforms?

02/04/2026

Isaac Short:

I believe my motion already does this? I would class publishing as part of both development and use, and so believe this motion already covers that, if not very clearly. I would however support an amendment to include publishing explicitly were an ammednment of that nature be written and submitted

Please log in to post a comment