Last month, the UK government announced the AI Skills Boost programme, promising “free AI training for all” and claiming that the courses will give people the skills needed to use artificial intelligence (AI) tools effectively. There are multiple reasons why we don’t agree.
US dependency over UK sovereignty
The “AI Skills Boost” is the free, badged “foundation” element of the government’s AI Skills Hub which was launched with great fanfare. There are 14 courses, exclusively from big US organisations, promoting and training on their platforms. The initiative increases dependency on US big tech – the opposite of the government’s recent conclusion, in its new AI opportunities action plan, to position the UK “to be an AI maker, not an AI taker”. It is also not clear how increasing UK workers’ reliance and usage of US big tech tools and platforms is intended to increase the UK’s homegrown AI talent.
In stark contrast to President Macron’s announcement last week that the French government will phase out dependency on US-based big tech, by using local providers to enhance digital sovereignty and privacy, technology secretary Liz Kendall’s speech was a lesson in contradictions.
Right after affirming that AI is “far too important a technology to depend entirely on other countries, especially in areas like defence, financial services and healthcare”, the secretary of state went on that the country’s strategy is to adopt existing technologies based overseas.
Microsoft, one of the founding partners for this initiative, has already admitted that “US authorities can compel access to data held by American cloud providers, regardless of where that data physically resides”, further acknowledging that the company will honour any data requests from the US state, regardless of where in the world the data is housed. Is this the sovereignty and privacy the UK government is trying to achieve?
Commercial content rather than quality skills provision
The AI Skills Hub indexes hundreds of AI-related courses. That means the hub, which cost £4.1m to build, is simply a bookmark or affiliate list of online courses and resources that are already available, with seemingly no quality control or oversight. The decision to award the contract to a “Big Four” commercial consultancy, PwC, rather than the proven national data, AI and digital skills providers who tendered, needs to be investigated.
The press releases focus on the “free” element of the training, but 60% of the courses are paid, even some of those which are marked as free, providing a deceptive funnel for paid commercial training providers.
We need to have greater national ambition than simply providing skills training. That the only substandard skills provision available is provided by those with commercial interests in controlling how people think about and use AI is a further insult
The package launched includes 595 courses, but only 14 have been benchmarked by Skills England, and there has been a critical outcry over the dangerously poor quality of many courses, some of which are 10 years’ old, don’t exist, or are poor quality AI slop.
An example of why this is so concerning is that many courses are not relevant to the UK. One of the courses promoted has already been shown to misrepresent the UK law on intellectual property, with the course creators later denying they had any contractual arrangement with the site and admitting that they were “not consulted before our materials were posted and linked from there”.
Warnings on the need for public AI literacy provision ignored
Aside from concerns over the standards, safety, sovereignty and cost of the content offered, there is a much bigger issue, which we have been warning about.
Currently, 84% of the UK public feel disenfranchised and excluded from AI decision-making, and mistrust key institutions, and 91% prioritise safe and fair usage of AI over economic gain and adoption speed.
In 2021, the UK’s AI Council provided a roadmap for developing the UK’s National AI Strategy. It advised on programmes of public and educational AI literacy beyond teaching technical or practical skills. This call has been repeated, especially in the wake of greater public exposure to generative AI since 2023, which now requires the public to understand not just how to prompt or code, but to use critical thinking to navigate a number of related implications of the technology.
In July 2025, we represented a number of specialists, education experts and public representatives, and wrote an open letter calling for investment in the UK’s AI capabilities beyond being passive users of US tools. Despite initial agreements to meet and discuss from the Department for Education and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the offer was rescinded.
Without comprehensive public understanding and sustained engagement, developing AI for public good and maintaining public trust will be a significant challenge. By investing in independent AI literacy initiatives that are accessible to all and not just aimed at onboarding uncritical users and consumers, the UK can help to ensure that its AI future is shaped with the UK public’s benefit at the heart.
Wasted opportunity to develop a beneficial UK approach to AI
We need to have greater national ambition than simply providing skills training. That the only substandard skills provision available is provided – at great public cost – by those with commercial interests in controlling how people think about and use AI is a further insult.
Indeed, Kendall’s claim that AI has the potential to add £400bn to the economy by 2030 is lifted from a report built by a sector consultancy that only focuses on the positive impact of Google technologies in the UK. Her announcement leaned heavily on claims such as “AI is now the engine of economic power and of hard power”, which come from a Silicon Valley playbook.
The focus on practical skills undermines the nation’s AI and tech sovereignty, harms the economy, with money leaving the nation to fund big tech. It entrenches political disenfranchisement, with decisions about AI framed as too complex for the general population to meaningfully engage with. It stands on fictitious narratives about inevitable big tech AI futures, in which public voice and public good are irrelevant.
If you wish to sign a second version of the open letter, which we are currently drafting, or to submit a critical AI literacy resource to We and AI’s resource hub, contact us here.
This article is co-authored by:
Tania Duarte, founder, We and AI
Bruna Martins, director at Tecer Digital
Dr. Elinor Carmi, senior lecturer in data politics and social justice, City St. George’s University of London
Dr. Mark Wong, head of social and urban policy, University of Glasgow
Dr Susan Oman, senior Lecturer, data, AI & society, The University of Sheffield
Ismael Kherroubi Garcia, founder & CEO, Kairoi
Cinzia Pusceddu, senior fellow of the Higher Education Academy, independent researcher
Dylan Orchard, postgraduate researcher, King’s College London
Tim Davies, director of research & practice, Connected by Data
Steph Wright, co-founder & managing director, Our AI Collective
Sign Up For Daily Newsletter
Be keep up! Get the latest breaking news delivered straight to your inbox.
By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Use and acknowledge the data practices in our Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
