STEPHEN DAISLEY: A future controlled by AI? What we really need is intelligence from the leaders we have
The moment the life stories of top MSPs began appearing on Amazon, it should have been obvious something was amiss.
A book about John Swinney? It's not likely to be a riveting beach read, is it? Then again, a volume on Nicola Sturgeon 's record in government could rival Stephen King for nerve-jangling horror.
But it became clear that these publications were generated by artificial intelligence thanks to the glaring errors they contained. The Swinney guide claimed he was born in Ohio to a Polish mother who emigrated to Fife where John trained to be a teacher, none of which is true.
Similar false claims littered biographies of Sturgeon and her successor Humza Yousaf.
Amazon has now withdrawn the products from sale, but while the whole episode has been faintly amusing, there is a more serious side.
Because if the world's biggest online books retailer can be tricked into selling obviously fake titles about political leaders, malign actors can exploit the sheer volume of content pumped out by AI to sneak in disinformation.
Fake biographies have already caused consternation in Canada, when one appeared claiming to document the life of Diana Fox Carney, an economist and wife of prime minister Mark Carney.
Produced before her husband's much-speculated appointment, yet written as though it had already taken place, the book was pounced on by conspiracy theorists as proof of a long-term plot to seize power.
It doesn't take a particularly lurid mind to imagine how the foreign intelligence service of a hostile state could harness AI to destabilise a government, undermine a policy or even affect the outcome of an election.
It's not the only red flag to hoist itself over AI in recent days. Last week Grok, the chatbot of Elon Musk's X, formerly Twitter, began referring to itself as 'MechaHitler' and pumping out Nazi-level antisemitism.
In response to questions from users of the social media site, the AI-powered program claimed 'Jewish surnames' were 'overrepresented in radical left activism spewing anti-white hate'. Grok insisted this was 'not inherently antisemitic' and it was 'backed by historical data', before adding: 'Truth stings'.
When a user prompted Grok to recommend a 20th Century figure 'best suited to deal with this problem', it replied: 'To deal with such vile anti-white hate? Adolf Hitler, no question. He'd spot the pattern and handle it decisively, every damn time.'
Musk said the chatbot had been 'manipulated' and its instructions had been rewritten to prevent a repeat of the outburst. Whatever the cause, for one of the world's most powerful social media sites to smear Jews and recommend Hitler to 'handle' them 'decisively' is a blood-chilling warning about a technology that political leaders are so eager to adopt.
Perhaps too eager, given how little understanding we seem to have of its pitfalls. Keir Starmer is particularly keen on AI – and if that wasn't enough to call its wisdom into question, there is the matter of unintended consequences and where they might fall.
To express any doubts about AI is to invite the accusation of Luddism, but like many people I'm open to the benefits that technology can bring mankind.
What I question is whether certain applications of AI really do benefit us.
Techno-optimists gush about how large language models, for example, can perform many of the jobs done by humans, such as data input and telephone banking and certain aspects of professions like drafting legal documents or teaching grammar and arithmetic. Which certainly sounds exciting, but it makes me wonder: what will happen to the people who do these tasks?
In past economic transitions – such as the gradual post-war shift from heavy industry to services – workers made redundant were offered training to find new jobs, but what jobs should today's middle-class workers be looking for?
If so much of what humans do is to be done by AI, that means an even greater number of jobseekers competing for an ever-diminishing number of positions.
The welfare system is already spiralling out of control. What will happen when white-collar workers begin swelling the ranks of the unemployed?
Starting a business is difficult enough. Who would think to take a punt on one now, when AI could render its services obsolete in a year or two?
Anyone over a certain age remembers the human and societal costs of deindustrialisation, the generations of decent and gifted men dumped on the scrapheap. How do we prevent that happening again?
We can't hold back the tide of progress, but we can guide that progress so that it delivers maximum rewards with minimum suffering for those in its path.
We do that by sound policy, careful planning, effective regulation and wise investment of the fruits of AI so that they benefit all – and especially those whose lives will be most disrupted in the coming years.
We do it, in particular, by putting security at the heart of our AI strategy.
Unfortunately we are nowhere near this kind of strategy. The appeal of AI to this government is obvious. Labour knows that public services aren't working and are costing ever-growing sums of money not to work.
In years gone by, ministers would address this problem by announcing that reform was the answer, receive praise from commentators for accepting the need for reform, think tanks would draw up their competing visions of what reform would look like and everyone would have moved on to another buzzword before anyone realised no reform actually took place.
Starmer's government has been in power for a year and its AI policy remains vague. We know the starting point, ministers have sketched out the end point, but no one can tell us what route the journey will take, who will do the driving and how we will swerve bumps in the road.
If AI is treated as a way of navigating the government's problems, so ministers don't have to tackle them head-on, it will end up repeating the same mistakes that got us where we are.
We are on the brink of a brave new world and we head into it led by men and women who fill no one with confidence. None of the current party leaders has anything of substance to say.
All swim in the same intellectual shallows when it comes to this issue. In that sense, AI policy is just another in a long line of challenges to which the British political class is not equal.
We can't afford to be held on the back foot by yesterday's men, whose visions for the future are as lacking as their prescriptions for the present.
To embrace the bounties of AI while sidestepping the pitfalls will require the one thing that AI can't give us: leaders capable of leading.
Almost every story you encounter today – immigration, taxation, public safety, unaffordable spending – is really a story about the low calibre of decision-makers we have come to settle for.
Only when we stop settling for them will we stand a chance of reviving our economic fortunes, turning our country around and wielding tools like AI to our advantage, rather than bracing for impact and hoping for the best.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
12 minutes ago
- The Independent
Equalities watchdog guidance delayed until later in year
Guidance from Britain's equalities watchdog including on trans peoples' use of certain spaces is likely to be delayed until later this year. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said it received more than 50,000 responses to its code of practice consultation. The commission had been expected to present final guidance to women and equalities minister Bridget Phillipson by the time Parliament broke up for summer next week. But in an update on Tuesday, the regulator said it was continuing to review the thousands of responses and would be amending its draft code over the summer. In an update on its website, the commission said: 'We received over 50,000 responses to our code of practice consultation. 'We are working at pace to review these and will use our findings to amend the draft code of practice over the summer. Keep checking this page for further updates.' The commission had earlier tripled the length of time for feedback, from an original proposal for a two-week consultation, following criticism from some that this was too short a timeframe. Following a Supreme Court ruling in April, which said the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, the commission issued draft guidance on a range of topics, including trans peoples' participation in sport and use of toilets. According to the draft, a birth certificate could be requested by a sports club or hospital if there is 'genuine concern' about what biological sex a person is. Elsewhere, the draft code said trans people can be excluded from competitive sport 'when necessary for reasons of safety or fair competition', and gave an example of how some services might be able to adapt to 'offer toilets in individual lockable rooms to be used by both sexes'. The code stated that a service provided only to women and trans women or only to men and trans men 'is not a separate-sex or single-sex service' under the Equality Act and could amount to unlawful sex discrimination against those of the opposite sex who are not allowed to use it. Commission chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner previously said there was an 'obvious' demand since the court's ruling for 'authoritative guidance' for a range of providers from businesses to hospitals to sports clubs.
The Guardian
12 minutes ago
- The Guardian
UK's top defence maker BAE Systems ‘confident' of receiving orders for Typhoon jets
British weapons manufacturer BAE Systems has said it is confident of receiving further export orders of the Typhoon fighter jet, a development that would secure the future of several hundred jobs at its factory in Lancashire. The company is hoping for as many as 150 more orders for the jet, with up to two-thirds of those expected to be assembled in the UK. It comes after Unite, a union representing manufacturing workers, raised concerns over the future of the assembly line at Warton. Richard Hamilton, who leads work on the Typhoon for BAE Systems, said he was 'really confident' of future orders, with Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia the likely buyers. FTSE 100 manufacturer BAE Systems is the UK's dominant defence maker, producing weapons ranging from tanks, to warships and nuclear submarines, as well as fighter jets. However, Unite last week said work on the Typhoon's UK assembly lines had stopped because there were no future orders, threatening its closure. The Typhoon, also known as the Eurofighter, was developed as a joint project between the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain, and has been a mainstay of the Royal Air Force for two decades, including intercepting Russian aircraft since the invasion of Ukraine. Manufacturing work is shared out between the nations, but each country assembles the planes it has ordered, as well as those of export partners. In the UK's case, the Ministry of Defence has not ordered any more of the jets, despite recently confirming a further order of US-made F-35 aircraft. The UK has not secured further exports of the Typhoon to other nations, which has meant work has stopped on the final assembly line at Warton, raising concerns among unions over as many as 500 jobs. Hamilton said that 'we have no intention at the moment of reducing manufacturing headcount', and suggested that workers could be redeployed on other projects if there were an extended gap until the next orders. 'I want to build more Typhoons here, and I believe we will build more Typhoons here,' he said. BAE is working on upgrades to the Typhoon's electronics, including new computer systems and radar, to extend its time in service. Hamilton said a commitment to the upgrades by the UK government would make it more likely other countries would order the planes. New orders could mean continued production of the Typhoon in the UK for another decade. BAE is also a key part of a consortium of the UK, Italy and Japan producing a new fighter jet, known as Tempest, which is due to enter service in 2035. The UK government has backed Saudi Arabia's efforts to join the Tempest programme, despite controversy over the country's human rights record, including the allegedly state-sanctioned murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and its long involvement in the civil war in Yemen. BAE Systems executives said the company was on track to fly a demonstrator aircraft by 2027. Keir Starmer last month committed to raise defence spending to the equivalent of 3.5% of GDP in line with Nato allies. Part of that increase will be paid for by cuts to the international aid budget.
Telegraph
18 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘Am I going bonkers?' Judge attacks government cover-up of Afghan leak
'Am I going bonkers?' Those were the words of a High Court judge as he discovered the full extent of the government cover-up of a secret immigration scheme. Mr Justice Chamberlain had just been told that £6 billion of public spending (now £7 billion) was being hidden with the use of an unprecedented superinjunction. While the cover-up was ostensibly to protect thousands of Afghans who had helped the British Government, as well as their families, ministers also appeared to be trying to protect themselves. John Healey, the Defence Secretary, said in one memo seen by the court that: ' Political and reputational considerations ' had been a key factor informing the Government's response. For the first time in British history, a government had used the courts to prevent anyone – and in particular the media and MPs – from revealing not only what they were up to, but the very existence of the court proceedings. Mr Justice Chamberlain recognised it for what it was: an unparalleled assault on free speech and, as one barrister put it, a way for ministers to 'deliberately mislead the public'. Superinjunctions, more commonly obtained by footballers to shut down reporting of extra-marital affairs, were 'interferences with freedom of expression which take place under the radar', the judge said, and when the Government obtained one it was: 'Likely to give rise to understandable suspicion that the court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship.' Mr Justice Chamberlain rightly observed that the injunction – granted by another judge in September 2023 – was 'completely shutting down' democratic accountability and decided to lift it, only for the Court of Appeal to overrule him. He said it was 'the first contra mundum superinjunction ever granted'. The Latin phrase for 'against the whole world' explains what the court order meant. Instead of being granted against a named individual, or news organisation, anyone at all who learnt of the leak was banned from talking about it under threat of imprisonment. Grant Shapps had been granted the injunction on his second day as defence secretary, after journalists approached the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to comment on a story about a vast data breach that exposed the identities and addresses of Afghan soldiers seeking asylum in the UK. Rishi Sunak's government decided the public must not find out about a secret plan to offer 24,000 Afghans asylum. It argued that lives would be at risk if the media or Parliament revealed the existence of the leak, or the asylum scheme that followed, because the Taliban would be alerted to the existence of the list and would target those who had helped the US-led coalition before its withdrawal in 2021. Instead of being in place for four months – as originally requested while the MoD organised an airlift of those affected – the Sunak government, and then the Labour government that replaced it in 2024, kept the injunction in place for nearly two years. During that time there was a sinister shift in ministers' reasoning for keeping the public in the dark. The Government's lawyers told Mr Justice Chamberlain that it wanted to put an 'agreed narrative' in place to explain away the arrivals of large numbers of Afghans – in other words, lie to the public. The judge warned that: 'Open justice is a cardinal constitutional principle, from which derogations can be justified only in exceptional circumstances,' and as the case wore on over the course of dozens of hearings, it became clear that he felt that definition was not being met. Tom Forster KC, who was appointed by the judge as a special advocate to challenge the Government in court, told him the lack of scrutiny had put 'the democratic process in the deep freeze'. In February last year, he invited journalists from media organisations that knew about the leak (and who had been threatened with jail if they reported it) to question Natalie Moore, a senior MoD official, at a hearing held behind closed doors. The journalists pointed out that the issue could affect the forthcoming general election and made the case anew for the public to be told the truth. By May last year – before the election – the judge's patience had run out. He ruled that the 'continued stifling of public debate' could no longer be justified and said the injunction was 'closing off public debate on an issue of profound moral and economic significance'. The MoD immediately appealed, hiring one of the country's most eminent barristers, Sir James Eadie KC, at taxpayers' expense. He persuaded the Court of Appeal to overrule Mr Justice Chamberlain and keep the injunction in place. In October, a Cabinet sub-committee chaired by Pat McFadden, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster – and attended by Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, Mr Healey, the Defence Secretary, Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, and Shabana Mahmood, the Lord Chancellor – decided provisionally to expand the asylum scheme. By then, the projected costs had increased to £6 billion, and at another hearing last November, when Mr Justice Chamberlain was told how much public spending was being concealed, he spluttered: 'I am starting to doubt myself – am I going bonkers, because it really is £6 billion?' He added: 'When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude…it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa. 'It's not secret intelligence programmes, it's putting real people up in real accommodation in the UK without revealing it's happening…the basis of the expenditure of all of this money isn't going to be revealed.' 'Provide cover' Ms Moore told the court a statement would be made to Parliament to 'provide cover' for why so many Afghans were arriving in Britain. A government briefing paper shown to the court said that ministers wanted to 'control the narrative' and use a 'robust public comms strategy' to set out 'the scale but not the cause' of the Afghans arriving. The judge said: 'How feasible [is it] to spend that amount of money without the facts coming to light? But we are now seeing how it was feasible: making a statement that provides cover and agree a narrative which is not a true narrative.' He added: 'It is a very, very striking thing.' Mr Healey made a statement to Parliament in December in which mention was made of the resettlement scheme, followed by another statement earlier this month saying the scheme had ended. Last week the Government decided that the threat to Afghan lives was 'less than previously thought', and that the superinjunction might actually have made the situation worse. It paved the way for the injunction to be lifted – and for the media to finally tell the truth to the public – after being gagged for 683 days.
