This paper raises the question of whether recent dynamics in the governance of artificial intelligence (AI) and automated decision making (ADM) in the United Kingdom (UK) are paternalistic in nature. An initial introduction sets out relevant background (Section 1), followed by details of the narrative review methods used (Section 2). Our analysis is presented in two parts. The first sets out general observations on UK AI/ADM governance (Section 3), including: an apparent dislocation between relevant measures and harms; and the existence of a trade-off between participation and confidentiality/ secrecy. The second analytical part (Section 4) then suggests three distinct ‘agendas’ in UK AI/ADM governance, demonstrating that both the Industrial Strategy’s approach to AI and recent efforts to develop standards for AI in the UK public sector are paternalistic. This part also shows the dominance of Industrial Strategy and highlighting the significance of the role of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (CDEI). A conclusion (Section 5) then summarises the discussion and proposes specific ways for researchers, civil society actors and policymakers to address the problematic paternalism of current AI/ADM governance in the UK.This paper raises the question of whether recent dynamics in the governance of artificial intelligence (AI) and automated decision making (ADM) in the United Kingdom (UK) are paternalistic in nature. An initial introduction sets out relevant background (Section 1), followed by details of the narrative review methods used (Section 2). Our analysis is presented in two parts. The first sets out general observations on UK AI/ADM governance (Section 3), including: an apparent dislocation between relevant measures and harms; and the existence of a trade-off between participation and confidentiality/ secrecy. The second analytical part (Section 4) then suggests three distinct ‘agendas’ in UK AI/ADM governance, demonstrating that both the Industrial Strategy’s approach to AI and recent efforts to develop standards for AI in the UK public sector are paternalistic. This part also shows the dominance of Industrial Strategy and highlighting the significance of the role of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (CDEI). A conclusion (Section 5) then summarises the discussion and proposes specific ways for researchers, civil society actors and policymakers to address the problematic paternalism of current AI/ADM governance in the UK.