What is genuine and authentically created by a human brain and what is manipulated or totally constructed. Does it matter or not. The lines are blurring, younger people who have been born holding practically videoing their own birth on an iPhone won't see anything wrong with it. But I think we risk watering down the value of what it means to be human and our ability to detect, be critical, exercise our brains and put the richness of effort and reward into our lives. AI has many upsides but like everything we've invented from fire to the wheel, it's a double edged sword.
Hi Paul. I am very old-fashioned, and enjoy grammar, and all connected to the English language. I have not a clue how to use AI, but surely if someone does use it, and they are known to others who read the content, they would recognise it is not how that individual speaks. Is it really worth it? If an individual utilised AI, I have no objection as long as they admit it, otherwise it is being deceitful.
I think Daniel is putting himself down by using the word 'thicko'. He is probably brilliant at something else. We all have diverse skills and knowledge. It would be so boring if we were all the same. I would much prefer someone to be themselves than to try to be someone they are not. I have seen people use the wrong word out of context, just to try to be clever in a pompous way, and belittle another individual, only to be caught out.
From what I have read, AI seems impersonal. When you write, Paul, it is as if you are talking. That, to me is the way it should be.
As George Orwell wrote: 'Never use a long word when a short one will do'.
If someone is concerned about their lack of English grammar, or writing skills, be it for work or pleasure, the best way to learn is to read; anything! The more one reads, the more one learns how to write, (and speak). It becomes much easier, without thinking eventually.
AI, to me is useful, as a dictionary or thesaurus, but can be misleading, especially if American English is used, so best to check, due to their way of spelling certain words.
All in all, Paul, I agree with you. It is best to write a short piece, putting your point across, rather than a long one full of unnecessary words and sentences.
NB: I think there is one exception to always using AI, and that is students; be it at school or university. I just believe it to be wrong. An individual could obtain a job where those skills are necessary, who has obtained a higher grade because they used AI, possibly cheating an honest person out of the job. Eventually they will be found out, but that is of no help to the one who should have had the position in the first place. Employers should be mindful of this, along with teachers and lecturers. I am sure they are. Best to give a short test, writing a letter for example.
Rant over-my apologies.
I thoroughly enjoy your writing including your book. Thank you.
I agree with you. AI is a useful aid, although I much prefer to construct my own replies or comments, learning, sometimes, from those posted by others how to better express myself or to see things from a different angle. I think it is dishonest to pass off something that is clearly not your own as an original work, comment or idea without crediting the fact that you have used AI. I haven’t used it except as a short cut when writing an email where I inserted a table and the text was sorted into specific bullet points. Even then I had to edit it as some things were wrong. I wouldn’t want to put my brain permanently in park mode and leave it there by subcontracting my output to a machine!!
It's kind of a bit mental how AI could push Martin to the fore of a number of social media threads and totally remodel not just his prose but his purpose.
Education is a lifelong hard slog that comes from beyond schooling etc to life experience and keeping up and challenging oneself with new material and learning.
I love that you still use lots of paper sources, magazines etc I try to also read from paper and books (including "Despised") as I find more stays in than digital reading.
I've used AI to correct and shorten a letter to the local paper on a complex and emotive topic, but id over worded it in my own writing and got lost a little in the point. AI sharpened it up, focussed it and shortened it to the 400-word limit while still making the same point more succinctly.
I did print both versions on paper and side-by-sided them as this was my first AI ask.
I'm not against it, but I work white collar for an evil corporation Infested with DEI and I see the people getting through recruitment who've just slapped a CV into AI and the application filtering software filters theirs to the top of the pile. In interviews they always fail because they can't verbally express things and it's clear they're quite shit. Whereas someone who could be a better fit but has written their own CV which isn't full of the buzzwords and layout AI filtering wants but could express themselves better will be filtered out.
I think it depends. If someone is going "Write me an article about *this topic*" and passing it off as their own, then that is highly questionable. However if your friend writes an article with all its mistakes and grammatical errors and then says "Take this article and correct it's grammar and spelling" then I think that's a different matter. Is that any different to asking a friend to correct your work so it's intelligible?
Completely agree. I don't like the idea of using AI to edit for me as 'Martin' is doing, but accept that if you are not a great writer, using AI could be legit. But if you do do that he, whoever, must say they have used AI, as that is otherwise dishonest.
And re Google Maps yes that maybe accurate as a prophecy, it would be wrong to suggest that following a internet street map is the same using AI to write for you.
I wouldn’t use AI to comment or write posts because it wouldn’t feel authentically me. Also I’d be afraid I’d lose the power to express myself clearly. I’d rather write in my own style than a confected amalgam of others.
However, if people need to get some help to articulate their thoughts, and make sure that what they write is comprehensible, I can live with that - as long as they fess up that a robot has done the heavy lifting.
I normally agree with 99% of what you write Paul. However we shouldn't dismiss or invaidate someone's views because they are unable to wrte them as constructively as an AI tool. Or should we? WE can't univent stuff and if it's available surely we should use it. However he could help himself by putting some sort of notice on his site/bio that he uses AI.
Isn't that like berating a miner for operating a BWE rather than using a pick and shovel? They are still a miner, but with a machine operating skill set.
And of course you can make a real mess of things if you don't know how to operate a BWE properly.
Large Language Models give those with ideas but poor prose a leg up in the same way that a car allows a person who can't run fast to outpace someone that can. It's just the next phase of technological enhancement. We don't announce we're driving to Newcastle rather than walking. We don't announce we're using a word processor and electronic mail rather than long hand, sealing wax and a mail coach. We automatically assume people are using the best technology available to get the job done. The spelling and grammar checker built into this ChromeBook I just happen to be using fixed a load of faults in this message on the fly. Is that a bad thing?
Even if you have a pre-trained transformer available you still have to drive it properly, and edit the output so it reads well and communicates the intent. Getting rid of the drudgery and the blank page problem will allow more people to share their ideas with others, much as GarageBand has allowed more people to share their musical compositions.
The cream will still rise to the top. This technology means there will be more production , but overall there will be more cream.
"I don’t want to come across as sanctimonious" , perish the the thought Paul 😉
But seriously, as readers will know my "vocabulary, spelling and grammar " is ship and if in any doubt go back and find tweets and comments from when a phone update disabled my spell checker, it was atrocious, so techI can be good because my comments were unreadable.
If ( god forbid) I was asked to give a speech or presentation to important people i may use tech or AI to help construct my sentences but the underlying thought process/idea /content of speech would be from my brain , I might just use the AI to "tidy it up " for me .
I think it can be good to help us thickos interact with smart people, without it i wouldn't be able to leave my comments.
I use AI in the same way: I gather my thoughts, write them down, review them and then let AI improve my writing and grammar. As a published technical writer, I am perfectly capable of writing coherent prose myself but it takes time as I review and improve my sentences to improve clarity and have the content read well and fluidly. Using AI just speeds up that process and of course I review the output before posting/publishing it, I've even slightly changed the AI output to make the text seem more like my style, but I'm sure I could teach the AI my writing style to use as hints.
It's a difficult one. If you are hopeless at grammar and articulation and you want to get your opinion across then some help is non. I think you should still write it yourself and ask AI merely to check for grammatical errors. I wouldn't have a problem with that. Windows has used spellcheckers for decades after all. But if rewritten using fancy words and sentence structures then it's not right. And you won't do yourself any favours when someone asks you to come and speak publicly as you'll be tongue-tied.
As for AI itself. It's quite useful for research and almost always gives a link to the website a particular point is take from allowing you to verify. Trawling through websites is so time consuming that asking AI for help is super useful and you can do a combination of both. Give it a try. Just don't get hooked! 😉 And your prose is always splendid. Succinct and without the use a fancy "look at me" big words.
Love the last two sentences as it sums up what I think of Paul’s writing. It’s easy to read but eloquent, whilst also stimulating and thoughtful. he always seems to articulate the views of his readers so well!
Paul, you are usually the first to call out horizontal moral spectacles—the habit of auditing personal conduct and syntax while structural power goes completely unexamined. Yet here you’ve stumbled into a similar trap by performing a process audit on a fellow trade unionist.
Romanticising the "countless torturous hours" you spent writing fetishises the suffering of the drafting process. For generations, access to political commentary has been gatekept by those with elite academic credentials or the luxury of endless free time. Working-class people, shift workers, and union reps often have razor-sharp material insights and sound diagnostic thinking, but they rarely have 30 spare hours a week to polish prose from scratch.
When AI is used as an intellectual engine—where the core thesis, local context, and real-world experience originate entirely from a human mind—it simply eliminates mechanical drudgery. It allows ordinary people to bypass traditional media gatekeepers and get necessary ideas heard.
Your former colleague's error wasn't using a digital tool to liberate his time and sharpen his output; his error was simple dishonesty in denying its use.
Turning this into a public trial over how text gets drafted misses the target. The only test that actually matters is material: Is the argument empirically true, is it grounded in physical reality, and does it help working people? How many hours someone spent sweating over a keyboard to arrange the verbs is completely beside the point.
Some thoughtful points, Spencer. I agree with quite a bit of what you say - especially the point about Martin's dishonesty. That, for me, crossed the line.
Paul, this is a tricky one. My instincts are that it’s wrong and it must feel particularly weird to read a post from someone you know, and yet the words he uses reveal him to be an imposter. Some would argue they would prefer his genuine thoughts to be described by his genuine words. But that’s not actually true, because his AI posts have gained more likes. Isn’t this the Labour way though, equality of outcome? And yet, there’s so much about Labour’s ‘equality’ that feels so unfair.
What is genuine and authentically created by a human brain and what is manipulated or totally constructed. Does it matter or not. The lines are blurring, younger people who have been born holding practically videoing their own birth on an iPhone won't see anything wrong with it. But I think we risk watering down the value of what it means to be human and our ability to detect, be critical, exercise our brains and put the richness of effort and reward into our lives. AI has many upsides but like everything we've invented from fire to the wheel, it's a double edged sword.
Hi Paul. I am very old-fashioned, and enjoy grammar, and all connected to the English language. I have not a clue how to use AI, but surely if someone does use it, and they are known to others who read the content, they would recognise it is not how that individual speaks. Is it really worth it? If an individual utilised AI, I have no objection as long as they admit it, otherwise it is being deceitful.
I think Daniel is putting himself down by using the word 'thicko'. He is probably brilliant at something else. We all have diverse skills and knowledge. It would be so boring if we were all the same. I would much prefer someone to be themselves than to try to be someone they are not. I have seen people use the wrong word out of context, just to try to be clever in a pompous way, and belittle another individual, only to be caught out.
From what I have read, AI seems impersonal. When you write, Paul, it is as if you are talking. That, to me is the way it should be.
As George Orwell wrote: 'Never use a long word when a short one will do'.
If someone is concerned about their lack of English grammar, or writing skills, be it for work or pleasure, the best way to learn is to read; anything! The more one reads, the more one learns how to write, (and speak). It becomes much easier, without thinking eventually.
AI, to me is useful, as a dictionary or thesaurus, but can be misleading, especially if American English is used, so best to check, due to their way of spelling certain words.
All in all, Paul, I agree with you. It is best to write a short piece, putting your point across, rather than a long one full of unnecessary words and sentences.
NB: I think there is one exception to always using AI, and that is students; be it at school or university. I just believe it to be wrong. An individual could obtain a job where those skills are necessary, who has obtained a higher grade because they used AI, possibly cheating an honest person out of the job. Eventually they will be found out, but that is of no help to the one who should have had the position in the first place. Employers should be mindful of this, along with teachers and lecturers. I am sure they are. Best to give a short test, writing a letter for example.
Rant over-my apologies.
I thoroughly enjoy your writing including your book. Thank you.
I agree with you. AI is a useful aid, although I much prefer to construct my own replies or comments, learning, sometimes, from those posted by others how to better express myself or to see things from a different angle. I think it is dishonest to pass off something that is clearly not your own as an original work, comment or idea without crediting the fact that you have used AI. I haven’t used it except as a short cut when writing an email where I inserted a table and the text was sorted into specific bullet points. Even then I had to edit it as some things were wrong. I wouldn’t want to put my brain permanently in park mode and leave it there by subcontracting my output to a machine!!
It's kind of a bit mental how AI could push Martin to the fore of a number of social media threads and totally remodel not just his prose but his purpose.
Education is a lifelong hard slog that comes from beyond schooling etc to life experience and keeping up and challenging oneself with new material and learning.
I love that you still use lots of paper sources, magazines etc I try to also read from paper and books (including "Despised") as I find more stays in than digital reading.
I've used AI to correct and shorten a letter to the local paper on a complex and emotive topic, but id over worded it in my own writing and got lost a little in the point. AI sharpened it up, focussed it and shortened it to the 400-word limit while still making the same point more succinctly.
I did print both versions on paper and side-by-sided them as this was my first AI ask.
I'm not against it, but I work white collar for an evil corporation Infested with DEI and I see the people getting through recruitment who've just slapped a CV into AI and the application filtering software filters theirs to the top of the pile. In interviews they always fail because they can't verbally express things and it's clear they're quite shit. Whereas someone who could be a better fit but has written their own CV which isn't full of the buzzwords and layout AI filtering wants but could express themselves better will be filtered out.
Kafkaesque
I think it depends. If someone is going "Write me an article about *this topic*" and passing it off as their own, then that is highly questionable. However if your friend writes an article with all its mistakes and grammatical errors and then says "Take this article and correct it's grammar and spelling" then I think that's a different matter. Is that any different to asking a friend to correct your work so it's intelligible?
Completely agree. I don't like the idea of using AI to edit for me as 'Martin' is doing, but accept that if you are not a great writer, using AI could be legit. But if you do do that he, whoever, must say they have used AI, as that is otherwise dishonest.
And re Google Maps yes that maybe accurate as a prophecy, it would be wrong to suggest that following a internet street map is the same using AI to write for you.
I wouldn’t use AI to comment or write posts because it wouldn’t feel authentically me. Also I’d be afraid I’d lose the power to express myself clearly. I’d rather write in my own style than a confected amalgam of others.
However, if people need to get some help to articulate their thoughts, and make sure that what they write is comprehensible, I can live with that - as long as they fess up that a robot has done the heavy lifting.
Otherwise it feels a little like plagiarism.
Exactly, Anne.
I normally agree with 99% of what you write Paul. However we shouldn't dismiss or invaidate someone's views because they are unable to wrte them as constructively as an AI tool. Or should we? WE can't univent stuff and if it's available surely we should use it. However he could help himself by putting some sort of notice on his site/bio that he uses AI.
Isn't that like berating a miner for operating a BWE rather than using a pick and shovel? They are still a miner, but with a machine operating skill set.
And of course you can make a real mess of things if you don't know how to operate a BWE properly.
Large Language Models give those with ideas but poor prose a leg up in the same way that a car allows a person who can't run fast to outpace someone that can. It's just the next phase of technological enhancement. We don't announce we're driving to Newcastle rather than walking. We don't announce we're using a word processor and electronic mail rather than long hand, sealing wax and a mail coach. We automatically assume people are using the best technology available to get the job done. The spelling and grammar checker built into this ChromeBook I just happen to be using fixed a load of faults in this message on the fly. Is that a bad thing?
Even if you have a pre-trained transformer available you still have to drive it properly, and edit the output so it reads well and communicates the intent. Getting rid of the drudgery and the blank page problem will allow more people to share their ideas with others, much as GarageBand has allowed more people to share their musical compositions.
The cream will still rise to the top. This technology means there will be more production , but overall there will be more cream.
Hiya Paul 👋
"I don’t want to come across as sanctimonious" , perish the the thought Paul 😉
But seriously, as readers will know my "vocabulary, spelling and grammar " is ship and if in any doubt go back and find tweets and comments from when a phone update disabled my spell checker, it was atrocious, so techI can be good because my comments were unreadable.
If ( god forbid) I was asked to give a speech or presentation to important people i may use tech or AI to help construct my sentences but the underlying thought process/idea /content of speech would be from my brain , I might just use the AI to "tidy it up " for me .
I think it can be good to help us thickos interact with smart people, without it i wouldn't be able to leave my comments.
Have a lovely week Paul and other readers 😃
Ps I would throughly recommend "Despised " .
I use AI in the same way: I gather my thoughts, write them down, review them and then let AI improve my writing and grammar. As a published technical writer, I am perfectly capable of writing coherent prose myself but it takes time as I review and improve my sentences to improve clarity and have the content read well and fluidly. Using AI just speeds up that process and of course I review the output before posting/publishing it, I've even slightly changed the AI output to make the text seem more like my style, but I'm sure I could teach the AI my writing style to use as hints.
It's a difficult one. If you are hopeless at grammar and articulation and you want to get your opinion across then some help is non. I think you should still write it yourself and ask AI merely to check for grammatical errors. I wouldn't have a problem with that. Windows has used spellcheckers for decades after all. But if rewritten using fancy words and sentence structures then it's not right. And you won't do yourself any favours when someone asks you to come and speak publicly as you'll be tongue-tied.
As for AI itself. It's quite useful for research and almost always gives a link to the website a particular point is take from allowing you to verify. Trawling through websites is so time consuming that asking AI for help is super useful and you can do a combination of both. Give it a try. Just don't get hooked! 😉 And your prose is always splendid. Succinct and without the use a fancy "look at me" big words.
You're too kind, Tracy! :)
I aim to please. ☺️
Love the last two sentences as it sums up what I think of Paul’s writing. It’s easy to read but eloquent, whilst also stimulating and thoughtful. he always seems to articulate the views of his readers so well!
Paul, you are usually the first to call out horizontal moral spectacles—the habit of auditing personal conduct and syntax while structural power goes completely unexamined. Yet here you’ve stumbled into a similar trap by performing a process audit on a fellow trade unionist.
Romanticising the "countless torturous hours" you spent writing fetishises the suffering of the drafting process. For generations, access to political commentary has been gatekept by those with elite academic credentials or the luxury of endless free time. Working-class people, shift workers, and union reps often have razor-sharp material insights and sound diagnostic thinking, but they rarely have 30 spare hours a week to polish prose from scratch.
When AI is used as an intellectual engine—where the core thesis, local context, and real-world experience originate entirely from a human mind—it simply eliminates mechanical drudgery. It allows ordinary people to bypass traditional media gatekeepers and get necessary ideas heard.
Your former colleague's error wasn't using a digital tool to liberate his time and sharpen his output; his error was simple dishonesty in denying its use.
Turning this into a public trial over how text gets drafted misses the target. The only test that actually matters is material: Is the argument empirically true, is it grounded in physical reality, and does it help working people? How many hours someone spent sweating over a keyboard to arrange the verbs is completely beside the point.
Some thoughtful points, Spencer. I agree with quite a bit of what you say - especially the point about Martin's dishonesty. That, for me, crossed the line.
Paul, this is a tricky one. My instincts are that it’s wrong and it must feel particularly weird to read a post from someone you know, and yet the words he uses reveal him to be an imposter. Some would argue they would prefer his genuine thoughts to be described by his genuine words. But that’s not actually true, because his AI posts have gained more likes. Isn’t this the Labour way though, equality of outcome? And yet, there’s so much about Labour’s ‘equality’ that feels so unfair.