UK's £400 Billion AI Claim Came From Google-Funded Research

The UK government's own estimate of AI's economic benefit to the country is £120 billion — less than a third of the £400 billion figure ministers cited publicly for almost two years, a figure that originated solely from research commissioned by Google. AI minister Kanishka Narayan admitted the discrepancy last week in a parliamentary answer, the first recorded evidence the government has set the two numbers side by side or disclosed that the £400 billion claim came from a Google-commissioned report.

Narayan, answering a parliamentary question, said AI adoption and data investment could add £55 billion to £140 billion to the UK economy by 2030, with a central estimate of £120 billion. Even this "more recent assessment," he said, was a "hugely uncertain" estimate. The £400 billion figure, he confirmed, "was drawn from a publicly available 2023 report commissioned by Google and produced by Public First," a British consultancy now known as PF Global.

The stakes are considerable. For two years, the government used the £400 billion number to reassure a British public worried that AI would trigger sweeping job losses and even an economic crash. The gap between the two figures — £120 billion and £400 billion — now sits at the center of a wider debate in Westminster over where government support for AI ends and industry boosterism begins.

Where did the £400 billion figure come from?

The provenance question first surfaced in January 2025, when Lord Holmes of Richmond, a Conservative peer, asked ministers about the origins of the £400 billion claim. He received no response at the time. Narayan's parliamentary answer, roughly a year later, is the first official acknowledgment WIRED could find that the figure came from Google-funded research.

The answer did not withdraw the £400 billion figure, and it did not say the number had been wrong. The Cabinet Office, the department responsible for AI in government, and Google were both approached for comment.

Government departments and agencies used the Google-commissioned figure for almost two years, across two governments. Former technology minister Peter Kyle repeatedly cited £400 billion while promoting the benefits of AI, even as parliamentarians outside government raised questions about the technology's risks. Ministers have held the lower estimate since at least November 2025 — almost a year before this week's admission — yet Skills England, the government agency responsible for apprenticeships, was still publishing the old figure four months later.

Why is the government's number so much lower?

Jonathan Dupont, head of economics at PF Global, told WIRED the disparity stems partly from what the consultancy sees 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," Dupont said. "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."

PF Global said its work for Google continues, but stressed that all research is independent and that all judgments and assumptions are its own. The consultancy pointed to more top-down adoption of AI and deeper integration of the technology into civil service workflows as levers that could improve take-up. "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," Dupont said.

What did lawmakers and experts say?

Dame Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP who chairs the Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, said the episode exposes a core problem her committee has already identified: hype. "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," Onwurah told WIRED. "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."

Lord Holmes of Richmond, who first asked about the figure's origins in January 2025, said the correction should have come sooner. "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 told WIRED. 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."

Sumedha Deshmukh of the Ada Lovelace Institute said the revised estimates are welcome but overdue. "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," Deshmukh 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."

What happens now?

Deshmukh set out a concrete test for future government use of AI economic projections. "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 episode leaves the £400 billion figure technically unwithdrawn, even as the government's central projection stands at £120 billion by 2030. With PF Global now expecting growth to ramp up only after 2030, and with billions of pounds of public spending keyed to assumptions about AI-driven productivity gains, the pressure on ministers to formally reconcile the two numbers — and to explain the year-long gap between knowing the lower estimate and disclosing it — is unlikely to fade.