For the last two years, the UK government has been telling the British public that the country could receive an economic boost of £400 billion, thanks to AI, a figure intended to calm fears that the technology would lead to sweeping job losses and even an economic crash.
But the UK AI minister admitted last week that figure was significantly higher than the government’s actual projections after it was revealed that assessment came solely from a report commissioned by Google, and that its own estimation of AI’s economic benefit was less than a third of that £400 billion figure.n
AI minister Kanishka Narayan, answering a parliamentary question on the issue, said that AI adoption and data investment could add £55 billion to £140 billion to the UK economy by 2030, bringing the central estimate to £120 billion. But even this “more recent assessment,” he said, was a “hugely uncertain” estimate.
Narayan said the £400b figure “was drawn from a publicly available 2023 report commissioned by Google and produced by Public First,” a British consultancy firm now referred to as PF Global.
Responding to WIRED’s questions about the difference between the figures, PF Global’s head of economics, Jonathan Dupont, said the disparity was partially because of what they saw as the government’s slow adoption of AI. “AI is a very fast moving technology, and, as we learn more, we inevitably have to update the assumptions lying behind our models. Compared to our older model, the numbers the government uses assume a much slower rate of adoption than looked possible back in our model that was created in 2023.”
Government departments and agencies used Google’s £400 billion figure for almost two years, under two governments. Ministers have had the lower estimate since at least November 2025, almost a year before this week’s admission, yet Skills England, a government agency responsible for apprenticeships, was still publishing the old figure four months later.
Nayaran’s parliamentary answer is the first recorded evidence WIRED could find of the government setting the two numbers side by side, or saying that the report was commissioned by Google. The answer did not withdraw the £400 billion figure or say it had been wrong.
Dame Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP who chairs the Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, told WIRED: “The government is right to promote the potential for technology like AI to improve public services. However, these reports highlight one of the central barriers to delivering the digital transformation of public services my committee has identified: hype.
“Economic projects inevitably rely on assumptions, but overstating the benefits of technology risks undermining the case for change. The government needs to be realistic about what technology like AI can deliver and be transparent with the public about potential savings.”
PF Global highlighted more top-down adoption of AI and integration into civil service workflows as examples of how take-up could improve. “While we haven’t changed our view on the overall potential of technology, given the slower rate of adoption we’ve seen in practice, our central estimate for the amount of potential likely to be achieved by 2030 is much closer to the Government’s number—with growth ramping up in the next few years after that.”
Lord Holmes of Richmond, the Conservative peer who asked ministers in January 2025 about the origins of the £400 billion claim but did not receive a response, told WIRED: “It is unfortunate that the figure used repeatedly by the government, and then, unsurprisingly, by multiple other organizations has now been significantly and rightly adjusted. It would have been better for the government to clarify this much sooner and more directly.”
He added: “Robust data is critical, not least as billions of pounds of our money and how the government chooses to deploy it depend on it.”
The spat over these two numbers—£120 billion and £400 billion—is part of a wider debate over the line between government support and boosterism. Former technology minister Peter Kyle also used the £400 billion while promoting the benefits of AI, while many parliamentarians outside of government raised questions about potential issues around the technology.
“The government’s revised estimates for how much AI could add to the economy are welcome—but it’s concerning that they come after almost two years of ministers citing a figure from research that was paid for by Google,” Sumedha Deshmukh of the Ada Lovelace Institute told WIRED. “This reflects a wider pattern. Figures about AI that look precise often have assumptions and incentives built into them, and industry often funds or shapes the research behind them.
“The government should test the numbers it is given before it builds policy on them, fund independent research, and measure whether promised gains are delivered. It should always start by asking simple questions before it uses any number around economic or productivity gains from AI—where did it come from, what does it assume, and who actually benefits from a given figure?”
The Cabinet Office, the department responsible for AI in government and Google, were approached for comment.
PF Global said their work for Google continued but all research was independent and all judgments and assumptions were their own.
