Hansard should not be filled with AI slop

I rise to speak on why MPs should not be getting AI to write their speeches (‘rise to speak’ is the first tell). It is not just a failure to meet the basic expectations we should have of our representatives in Parliament, but an embarrassing outsourcing of one of the most powerful political tools at their disposal (‘not just a’ + ‘but a’ is the second tell). It underscores the lack of mental focus and application going on within the Commons (‘underscores’ is the third tell word). 

The above paragraph contains a series of common quirks of AI writing a speech – and there has been an uptick in their use within Parliament as both MPs and peers turn to ChatGPT (other AI generated platforms are available) to craft their contributions.

First reported in PoliticsHome, who spied there has been a huge increase in usage of the phrase “I rise to speak…” reaching 601 mentions in Hansard so far this year compared to just 131 times in the same period last year, data analysis from Pimlico Journal had MPs almost certainly using AI via a series of such tells, including examples of likely ChatGPT generated MP speeches.

And, bizarrely, the Conservative Party official X (Twitter) account reposted its former director of strategy and now Tory peer Rachel Maclean after she responded to an article about MPs using AI to generate Commons speeches, with: “Of course they are. So are peers. And so they should be. Don’t be a Luddite.”

I had never imagined an official endorsement of the practice ‘Conservatives for ChatGPT speeches’ – and I wouldn’t say it is being a luddite to desire elected members of the Commons, even those unelected members of the upper house, to be writing their own speeches to be read aloud in Parliament’s chambers.

Actually, I think it is a relatively basic expectation.

There is no requirement for MPs and Peers to make speeches in Parliament, so if one is doing so it is because they have chosen to do so.

To make an active choice and decide, ah, there is a subject I must declare my thoughts on, only to then outsource those very thoughts to an AI is not just a failure to meet what should be basic expectations of those who have the privilege to sit in Parliament, but is plain embarrassing.

And the reason so few have openly admitted its usage in writing their speeches is almost certainly because they know that.

The Labour MP Mike Reader – who uses AI to draft responses to the more than 500 emails he receives each week – says that he plays “ChatGPT Bingo” to spot when they think an MP has used it to write their speech. He told PoliticsHome: “They have certain terms they use… ChatGPT thinks parliamentary speeches should start with ‘I rise to speak in support of…’ If you see someone say that, chances are they’ve probably written it with ChatGPT.”

SNP MP Graham Leadbitter has been open about using AI to generate his Commons contributions: “When it comes to writing speeches, I have found that AI is fantastic at providing a good, well-structured speech on a given issue.”

But it was Tory MP Luke Evans who was actually the first MP to deliver a speech written by AI in Parliament back in 2022, though to his credit that was openly as a demonstration of the vast developments of the technology. 

Politicians can sound robotic at the best of times, let alone having an actual robot write their speech.

David Davis once attempted getting an AI writing to replicate his speaking mannerisms but found they couldn’t quite match his style.

Thankfully there are some politicians who have publicly decried the practice. Tory Ben Obese-Jecty told Politics Home: “I think speechwriting needs to be done from scratch if you want to develop your own style and tone, but I’m sure not everyone thinks that.”

Back in 2023, Andrew Griffith said in the Commons: “Enough of these ChatGPT-does-socialism-type speeches.” I wholeheartedly agree.

Reliance on AI, according to a Microsoft study, may be “slowly impairing our critical thinking skills”. Analysis of the data in the Financial Times concluded that it is leading to an “erosion in human capacity for mental focus and application”.

I can understand using AI to draft replies to constituents that are then worked on by human beings. I can get having it compile research that is then checked over by an actual pair of eyes. Even making a rather cringeworthy AI version of yourself for people to interact with like the Labour MP Mark Sewards, I can understand.

But if politicians can’t be bothered to write a speech without using AI, they just shouldn’t make one.