The UK AI Security Institute (AISI) and the European AI Office are the primary bodies covering security and safety of AI systems in their respective jurisdictions. The institutions have overlapping mandates and share various functions. Using a framework of four levels of engagement – collaboration, coordination, communication and separation – this brief provides an overview of potential synergies and strategic alignment, summarized in a table of ideas (Table 1). This framework can further provide a model for other regional strategic arrangements within the broader network of AISIs.
In particular, the institutions could benefit from collaborating on jointly developing standards and international engagement, where aligning efforts would amplify global influence and streamline participation in forums such as AI summits. Coordination may be ideal for some aspects of evaluations, where avoiding duplication and ensuring interoperability are key, for example by developing consistent evaluation metrics, establishing clear policies on evaluation responsibilities, and holding periodic meetings to interpret results. Communication is well-suited to areas like risk monitoring and incident reporting, where differences in institutional mandates and definitions could benefit from consistent information-sharing channels. Separation is necessary when confidentiality, sensitivity, or differing priorities demand independent action. For example, exploratory research on future trends might be better handled separately to avoid risks and ensure strategic autonomy. At all levels of engagement, it is important to also keep in mind institutional differences, including the UK AISI dealing with proprietary information from companies, the AI Office being a regulator, and particular relationships with their respective defense agencies.
In short, there are a range of avenues for the UK AISI and the EU AI Office to work effectively together on their synergistic tasks while respecting their overlapping but distinct mandates, institutional differences, and contexts. Our key recommendation is for policy practitioners in both jurisdictions, within public bodies or civil society, to concretise these avenues and provide more detailed guidance for their implementation.
