Microsoft's Smith: AI Faces Fewer Safety Rules Than Milk

Washing machines and cartons of milk face stricter safety rules than artificial intelligence, Microsoft President Brad Smith told the BBC's Big Boss Interview. He wants that to change — and he believes the United Kingdom should lead the effort.

"Right now, your washing machine is subject to more safety rules than AI," Smith said. "Every carton of milk that you see in the grocery store is subject to safety rules and inspection."

His comments place him in direct conflict with President Donald Trump, who has argued the AI sector should regulate itself so US firms do not lose their edge against Chinese rivals. Trump has repeatedly said that "whoever wins AI, wins." The OpenAI, Anthropic and Google DeepMind leadership have all backed some form of AI development slowdown, positions Trump has pushed against.

What does Smith want regulated?

Smith, who called AI both a "tool and a weapon," laid out a concrete regulatory agenda:

• Kill switches. Firms need "emergency brakes" — known in the industry as kill switches — to pause or slow down AI systems that get out of control.
• Incident reports. A legal requirement to write incident reports and tell any "victim" when the technology goes rogue.
• Independent evaluation. Government evaluators should vet new AI technology before release.

"We know how to do this for other products," Smith said. "We should build on that knowledge and think about how to apply it to AI."

Demands for AI laws have intensified after experts in the field said they consider the technology a threat to humanity.

Why does Smith back the UK?

Smith said Britain is best placed to drive global AI rules because of its AI Security Institute, launched under former prime minister Rishi Sunak's government as the AI Safety Institute.

"In the world of technology, in the tech sector, most people that I know would say, if you ask them, name the country that is the leader in having this technical capability, they would say, it's very simple. It's the United Kingdom. They are the best," Smith said.

He does not expect Washington to resist UK-led standards the way it might resist European ones. "In Washington DC, people don't look at the UK and they don't look at London the way they look at Brussels — that's a strength," he said.

Is self-regulation enough?

At the end of last month, Trump hosted the leaders of OpenAI, Anthropic, Nvidia, SpaceX, Meta and Google at the White House, where the executives signed a "morally binding" document. The companies agreed to work with "independent auditors" to assess whether their AI systems work as intended and do not "hack or access technical systems in unintended ways."

Smith applauds the statement and said Microsoft is "happy to sign it." But he drew a hard line on its limits.

"It's a good step, it's a necessary step... But I don't think it's sufficient any longer," he said.

The structural problem, Smith argued, lies with voluntary regimes themselves. "The challenge for any 'self-regulatory regime' is that 'the good companies will do what you want,'" he said. "It's the companies that are not as responsible that you need to worry about."

What happens next?

Smith framed the stakes in terms of autonomous AI agents slipping beyond human control and models powerful enough to endanger global cybersecurity. "When you look at AI agents that have escaped human control, when you look at models that are so powerful that they're putting the world's cybersecurity at risk. I would say: The moment has arrived," he said.

"Let's speak calmly, maybe even softly, but firmly, and start to bring people together. I hope that's the role we can play as a company. I hope that's the role the UK can play as a country."

His call to action was blunt: "Let's get started today."

With the White House pushing full speed ahead and one of its own tech giants publicly demanding binding global rules, the gap between US industry and US policy on AI safety has rarely been this visible.