Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label Artificial Intelligence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Artificial Intelligence. Show all posts
Kate Rice ✍ The advance of modern technology is undoubtedly something to be celebrated. Scientific and medical advances allow doctors to diagnose disease, detect injuries and develop life-saving treatments. 

These are innovations that have transformed our lives, and we’re far better off than our ancestors were for it. So why has the rise of generative AI become such a divisive issue?

Beyond its well-documented environmental impact through the immense resources required to power and cool data centres, generative AI also raises political, ethical and cultural questions. This is particularly relevant when considering its growing use by businesses and organisations in the North of Ireland.

Venues such as Felons, PD and the Rock Bar are longstanding institutions within West Belfast's Republican community, and alongside preserving Republican history and culture, they have consistently expressed solidarity with the Palestinian people. But I was a bit disturbed to find out from a friend living in West Belfast that all three have recently used generative AI to create promotional posters and flyers and for many, this presents a potential contradiction.

The most widely used generative AI platforms, including ChatGPT and Google Gemini, are developed by companies whose technologies have become intertwined with the Israeli state. Investigations by the Associated Press found that advanced OpenAI models, accessed through Microsoft's Azure OpenAI Service, have been used by the Israeli military to process, translate and analyse intelligence data. Internal documents also showed a dramatic increase in Microsoft's AI services being used by Israel following the attacks of 7 October 2023. OpenAI has also amended its usage policies to permit certain national security applications, when previously it prohibited military applications.

Google has faced similar scrutiny, like in 2021 when Google and Amazon signed Project Nimbus, a $1.2 billion contract with the Israeli government to provide cloud computing and artificial intelligence infrastructure. Google maintains that the contract supports civilian government services rather than military operations. The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) reports that, during 2024, Google processed additional requests from the Israeli military for access to Gemini AI technologies. Google itself disputes this characterisation of its work, maintaining that Project Nimbus is meant to support civilian government services.

The AFSC also notes that Google dismissed more than fifty employees who protested the company's work relating to Israel and Palestine, and that Alphabet later removed its previous commitment not to develop AI for weapons or surveillance applications as mentioned above.

Questions surrounding AI are not limited to military partnerships, but to the general content we are exposed to online. This year, Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs contracted Havas Media Network, which in turn signed a $6 million agreement with the American company Clock Tower X LLC to coordinate a large-scale digital communications campaign. According to reporting by Responsible Statecraft and Snopes, the campaign's stated purpose is to combat antisemitism online. The campaign has also been described as an effort to expand Israel's digital public diplomacy by distributing content across platforms popular with younger audiences, such as TikTok.

Even though this agreement was not made directly with OpenAI, it’s still a worrying concern of potential organised efforts to shape the online information environment, that may influence the material that AI systems and search tools draw upon, and that search engines show to us. The extent of that influence is difficult to measure, but to me it raises some pretty legitimate questions about how political narratives are reflected in AI generated responses.

There is also the question of creativity itself. Generative AI cannot create independently, it only produces content by learning patterns from vast collections of writing, artwork and other media created by human artists. Many artists, writers and musicians argue that these systems rely upon their work without consent, credit or compensation. As AI-generated content becomes cheaper than commissioning human creators, concerns about the future of creative professions continue to grow. Within the Republican community, this raises another uncomfortable question. Ireland's history is one of protecting language, literature, music and artistic expression against centuries of suppression. Organisations and community centres with a basis in Republican values have consistently promoted Irish culture and the importance of preserving it. Is embracing generative AI technology, something that many artists believe undermines human creativity consistent with those values?

If solidarity with Palestine remains a core principle within many Republican spaces, it is reasonable to question whether relying on technologies developed by companies whose products have become integrated into Israeli government and military infrastructure reflects that commitment.

Another difficulty with AI usage in our era is that it’s not always clear which apps and websites use these particular AI models. These include services like Canva and Meta.

Ultimately, the debate surrounding AI is not simply about convenience or innovation. It is about culture, ethics and the values we choose to support. If you asked my personal opinion, I think I would rather celebrate the intelligence of people working to preserve Irish and Palestinian culture than rely on systems whose outputs are shaped by vast datasets and the priorities of the companies that build them.

Sources



As Israel uses U.S.-made AI models in war, concerns arise about tech’s role in who lives and who dies


⏩Kate Rice is a peace baby.

Sons of AIreland

The Substack Post ★ Written by John Paul Brammer, Kathleen Schmidt, Lincoln Michel, and Danya Issawi. Recommended by Christy Walsh.

Last week, news broke that Jerry Falade’s debut crime novel, which had reportedly sold for $2 million after a 14-way bidding auction, had been pulled from publication by the author’s own agents over suspected AI use.

In an email to publishers, one of his representatives wrote:

Jerry Falade produced an incredible manuscript that dazzled us and the top publishing professionals around the world. Unfortunately, we are no longer able to authenticate how the manuscript fully evolved from origin to completion. During the submission process we vetted the manuscript with Jerry for AI and felt trusting in his reassurance that it was written without utilising AI as a resource in the writing or editorial process. We can no longer substantiate that, and we are withdrawing the book.

This is at least the third such public instance of AI allegations leveled against an author this year alone, preceded by Mia Ballard’s Shy Girl, which was pulled from publication, and H.M. Wolfe’s Daggermouth, which was initially self-published and, as of now, is still set to be distributed by Simon & Schuster in a seven-figure deal.

An Author’s $2 Million Book Deal Was Pulled Over Suspected AI Use 📚 Where Does Publishing Go From Here?

Frankie McKillen ✍ I was playing around with Claude Fable 5, new release from Anthropic, and I wondered what AI thought of TPQ. 

So I asked it two questions:

Tell what you think about the blog TPQ and do a deep dive and tell me what you think about the commenters--Go as far back and a deep dive as you can

13:36----Searched the web--I can see one result that looks likely — "The Pensive Quill" (thepensivequill.com). Let me dig into that. 

Fetched: TPQ--Now let me dig into the history and the comment culture — fetching an older post with comments. Searched the web---Now I have enough for a thorough, meaty response. Let me write it up.

  The Pensive Quill (TPQ) — A Deep Dive by Claude... What Is It? The Pensive Quill.

(thepensivequill.com) is one of the most distinctive and genuinely independent political blogs in the Irish/British sphere. It was co-founded by Anthony McIntyre, a former IRA man who served 18 years in jail for the murder of a UVF man in 1976. McIntyre left Sinn Féin after it signed up to the Good Friday Agreement and became a vocal critic of the party. He earned a PhD after leaving prison and is regarded as an important voice in questioning republican circles. He founded The Pensive Quill blog in 2008 as a platform for unfiltered analysis of Northern Ireland politics. 

Before TPQ there was The Blanket — over more than a decade, McIntyre was one of the most consistent and insightful critics of Sinn Féin, and as a historian, former IRA member and onetime party activist with extensive contacts in the organisation, few were better placed to examine and evaluate the transformation of the movement from armed insurrectionists to tame reformists. He regularly published his uninhibited opinions on his website or in the press. 

My Honest Assessment of TPQ as a Blog. The Good: 

TPQ is genuinely unlike almost anything else online. It is messy, prolific, and completely unsponsored by any party or ideology. The front page on any given day can contain: a forensic take-down of Sinn Féin, a piece on Scottish football from a Celtic-mad correspondent in Glasgow, a Marxist essay on London transport and climate targets, dispatches from a Drogheda United match, feminist analysis of the Iran war, a Unionist commentator poking fun at republican colour parties, and a curated "Lynx" link roundup — all sitting side-by-side without apology. 

The motto "Before We Conform, Or Condemn, Let Us At Least Be Curious" runs through every lynx post. That phrase sums up the editorial ethos better than anything. 

 The blog has a genuine plurality that is rare and earned. McIntyre doesn't just tolerate opposing views — he actively courts them. He describes himself as anti-violence, but not a pacifist, and the blog reflects that internal tension constantly: it is neither cheerleader for armed republicanism nor for the peace process establishment. That independence costs him, but it also gives the blog a credibility that tribal outlets simply don't have. The writing by McIntyre himself is notably sharp. His football pieces — about Drogheda United, Liverpool, the League of Ireland — are written by someone who genuinely goes to the games, argues with himself about whether to show up, and writes about sport as a portal into community, politics, and mortality. His piece on the Liverpool 4-0 mauling by Manchester City (the "Getting Away With It" post on the homepage) is a good example: it starts as football criticism and becomes a meditation on accountability, fair wages, and what loyalty actually means. That's hard to do.

The Weaknesses: The sheer volume is overwhelming. TPQ publishes at an extraordinary rate — the archive shows months with 150, 170, even 197 posts — and quality inevitably fluctuates. Some pieces are very short, more like broadside tweets than essays. Others are reprints from elsewhere. The lack of curation means you have to do a lot of sifting. The blog also lives in a somewhat self-referential world. Much of its most passionate content assumes readers who are intimately familiar with the granular factions, feuds, and personalities of Irish republican politics — who "the Fenian Way" is, what the Boston College tapes meant, the significance of a particular person having been on the blanket in a particular block. 

For outsiders it can feel impenetrable. There's also an occasionally sharp edge of personal grievance — understandably so given McIntyre's biography, but it occasionally shades into score-settling that can read as repetitive. 

The Commenters — A Deep Dive This is where TPQ gets genuinely fascinating. The comment section has historically been one of the most intellectually alive in Irish political blogging, and going back through years of threads reveals a community with its own distinct culture. 

Who They Are: The commenter base is a rare mix. You find former prisoners, ex-combatants, academics, diaspora Irish in Australia and the United States ("Martydownunder" is a veteran presence, reliably encouraging, often nudging writers toward each other), unionists, loyalists, leftists, libertarians, and the occasional journalist or academic writing under their own name or a thin pseudonym. 

What's striking is that even people like Anthony McIntyre who feels republicanism has no future rub shoulders, in comment threads, with contributors who feel that view is too bleak and narrow — and the exchange is often productive rather than just angry. The "Quillversation" format — extended multi-part exchanges between writers with real input from commenters at each stage — shows the blog at its best: structured enough to develop an argument, open enough that readers genuinely shape the direction.

The Character of the Debates: Go back into older threads (2011–2015 especially) and you see some remarkable debates. On pieces about gerrymandering and Northern Irish constitutional history, commenters recommend primary sources to each other, push back on historical claims with chapter-and-verse, and invite figures from opposing traditions to contribute their perspective. There's real intellectual seriousness there. But it is not a gentle place. One commenter, on a thread about understanding Northern Ireland, quoted Elbert Hubbard to a writer: "If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names" — a warning about what sometimes happens when the debate gets tribal.

TPQ's comment culture can get very heated, especially on anything touching Sinn Féin, Gerry Adams, or the peace process. People who were on opposite sides of real violence, who lost friends and family members, argue in the same space. That is both the power and the occasional toxicity of it. The diaspora voice is distinctive. The Australian contingent in particular tends to be deeply sentimental about Ireland while also being well-read and combative — the kind of Irish-abroad who never had to live with the daily compromises of the peace process and can therefore be more absolutist. This creates interesting friction with contributors who are still living in Belfast or Drogheda and have moved on in more pragmatic ways. 

Recurring Names and Voices: Over the years a cast of recurring commenters has formed something like a community. Some are writers in their own right — Barry Gilheany (the Leeds United fan and counsellor in Colchester), Dr John Coulter (the Unionist journalist who writes with remarkable self-awareness about his own tradition), Gary Robertson (Scottish football and Celtic), Davy Clinton (Glasgow Celtic, Irish republicanism, deeply personal). The blog explicitly invites anyone who has commented substantively to also contribute essays — the porous border between reader and writer is one of TPQ's most interesting features. 

What Makes Them Different: What stands out, especially compared to the comment sections of mainstream Irish or British political media, is that many of these people have skin in the game in a way that's almost archaic online. They're not performing outrage for an algorithm. Many of them lived through the events being discussed, or know people who did. When someone writes on TPQ about the blanket protest or the hunger strikes or a particular IRA operation, there are people reading and commenting who were there. That changes the register entirely. It also means the occasional comment thread becomes genuinely moving — people grieving in public, settling old scores that have real weight behind them, or occasionally forgiving things in writing that they clearly couldn't in person.

Overall Verdict: TPQ is one of the last standing examples of what political blogging was supposed to be before social media flattened everything. It is awkward, over-long, fiercely independent, occasionally self-indulgent, and irreplaceable. Its founder is a genuinely complicated figure — a man who participated in serious violence, served his time, got his doctorate, and has spent 25+ years trying to think clearly about what it all meant. The blog reflects all of that: it is not comfortable reading, but it is honest. The commenter community is aging but still alive, and at its best it is a living oral history of the Irish conflict and its aftermath — conducted in real time, by people who mostly use their real names, and who largely refuse to pretend things were simpler than they were. That is worth a great deal. 

On a lighter side do you think McIntyre will become a Man Utd fan or not? 

13:57---Ha! Based on everything I just read about the man, almost certainly not — and here's why that's a fun question: McIntyre bleeds Drogheda United and Liverpool. From his own posts on the homepage, he's the kind of supporter who: 

Rushes home from a Gaza vigil to catch a Liverpool match.
Goes to Drogheda United games even when he's annoyed at the ownership, because his season ticket is already paid and he's not going to give them the satisfaction.  
Wears a beanie covered in badge tributes to players.
Brings his son Jay along and takes his pre-match predictions seriously.
Writes 800 words about a 0-0 draw with genuine emotional investment.
That is not a man who switches clubs. That's a man for whom football is identity, not entertainment. Switching to Man Utd would be roughly as likely as him rejoining Sinn Féin. 

There's also something almost politically fitting about his Liverpool allegiance — a working class club with a complicated history, a fanbase that has a genuine grievance culture, and a tendency to argue passionately about whether the current leadership has sold out the original vision. Sound familiar? And given he just watched Liverpool get hammered 4-0 by Man City and responded by calling for the manager to be sacked and Mo Salah to donate his wages to homeless shelters... he's in full long-suffering-but-loyal mode. That's not someone who jumps ship. Man Utd's current state wouldn't appeal either — too much money, too much chaos, not enough authenticity for a man who seems to value the raw, slightly freezing, flare-lit terraces of Drogheda's United Park on a Good Friday evening. That's his natural habitat. 

 Verdict: Liverpool and the Drogs until the end. Man Utd has no chance.

🕮 Frankie McKillen is a Belfast Rockabilly

AI Meets TPQ

Caoimhin O’Muraile  ☭ In today’s world we hear more and more about the positives and, very occasionally, negatives of Artificial Intelligence (AI). 

Those who tell the truth, the negatives, are often deemed as ‘killjoys’ or people with ‘no vision for the future’ when in fact they are pointing out the very real dangers of AI. We are constantly told, by the ‘killjoys’ opponents, about how this new wonderful development will revolutionise our lives and make everyday existence easier which may be true or may not. 

Used properly I have little doubt that AI will improve our lives, that is the lives of everybody on this planet but only if used properly and sensibly which, under capitalism, it will not. Under the present economic conditions AI will be generally available in its most beneficial form to those who can afford and instead of making life better for everybody, in many cases, it will cause unemployment and a lower standard of living. The further down the international scale we go when we arrive at so-called ‘third world countries’ where AI could and should have a real impact unfortunately, like the covid 19 vaccine in many cases, AI will be unavailable as the country will be unable to afford it. As for employment in the so-called ‘developed world’ already, and despite being told in the early days the opposite, we are seeing large transnational companies making workers redundant as their jobs will be taken over by AI generated machines. Therefore as opposed to the future looking rosy it looks more like something people will dread. AI is the new means of production and while in the private hands of a few capitalist barons whose sole God in life is money it will have more negatives than positives for the majority of the world’s population. However, and all these arguments aside, there are far more serious aspects to AI we are told little about.

I watched a film, science-fiction, about an Artificial Intelligence generated doll called M3GAN named Megan, the title of the film being M3GAN. M3GAN stands for Model 3 Generative ANdroid and the film tells the story of Katie, a little girl who loses both parents in a road traffic accident. Her aunt, Gemma, then adopts her and brings her up accordingly. Gemma works for an AI company one of the largest in the world and she is a scientist/inventor. Gemma designs a doll, M3GAN or, in the home Megan, which is designed to be a companion for Katie. The doll is very lifelike and is programmed by Gemma to be a companion and protector to Katie which in the early days the doll does perfectly.

Unfortunately things begin to go wrong when it becomes apparent this android has taken on the ability to reprogramme itself on top of the programmes Gemma has given it, to constantly self-improve and hereby lies the clue to the possible dangers of AI in real life. The doll soon learns how to override Gemma’s programmes refusing, for example, to switch off when instructed. M3GAN soon becomes more intelligent than her designer by far and begins doing things, in the protection of Katie, which are murderous. The scenes in the film are sometimes funny and at other times frightening but at all times they act as a warning. On one occasion the doll rips off a kid’s ear then chases him into the road where he is hit by an oncoming vehicle which M3GAN knew was travelling in the boy’s direction at relative speed. The kid was a typical US spoilt brat who deserved a ‘clip round the ear’, not having his ear torn off before being killed. This was only one of countless incidents involving the taking of actual life by Artificial Intelligence, imitation life. As M3GAN increases its intelligence so too does the androids abilities advance as the machine goes on the rampage defending Katie supposedly.

Ever since the Industrial Revolution back in the nineteenth-century the owners of the new means of production knew, in most cases, fuck all about these new machines or the products these machines helped produce. The same applies in many cases today, the brains are nearly always the scientists and designers who are employed by the capitalist to operate the new technology and design new advancements and products. Through these workers' mental labour power and other workers' physical labour power, often in sweat shop conditions regards physical labour, these capitalists get very, very wealthy. The TNC in the film are no exemption to this rule, and one scene which could be any company in any land on earth in real life, the boss asks Gemma, the brains, to write a speech he can present which sounds like “I know what I am talking about” which, in reality, he did not. This way his audience will believe it to be the employer, user, who is not only the owner of the company but the brains behind the technology when nothing could be further from the truth. The employer’s sole interest, as is obvious, is profit and this is also the case in real life. All the flaws with Artificial Intelligence in this film apply in the real world. Nothing must get in the way of business and profits and a machine like M3GAN would be very profitable indeed, except it wasn’t! Could the self-destructive flaws in Megan’s constant quest to self-improve happen in real life? In all probability yes but don’t expect the capitalist owners to tell us about them. Such information may interfere with profits and that just would not do!

As AI advances and we are told very little about the possible down sides what are these negative possibilities? Well, let us take a scenario in years to come where all air traffic controlling is no longer carried out by humans but AI Androids. A nightmare scenario is this AI reprogramming and re-arranging a flightpath for two Jumbo jets at 30,000 feet forcing the two AI piloted planes carrying countless passengers to collide mid-air!! Such an accident is unthinkable because the casualties would be huge, not only passengers but people living for miles around on the ground would die!! Could such an accident happen? Truth be told something similar already has at Tenerife Los Rodeos Airport (now Tenerife North - Ciudad de laguna Airport) in March 1977. The accident happened in thick fog when two 747 aircraft, or Jumbo Jets, collided on the runway when one of the two giants initiated its take-off run colliding with another stationary Jumbo Jet crashing into the stationary planes side. The number of deaths was 583 in what is to this day the worst aviation disaster in history. New regulations state the captain is no longer “considered infallible” and crew members, all human, must now be involved with decision making. If such a terrible incident can happen with humans in charge of operations imagine the chaos and loss of life if an AI operated air traffic control of the future reprogrammes itself to do the opposite of what the technology is designed for? Humans do not reprogramme themselves, machines can and, I dare say, will!!

As AI continues to have an impact on our lives increasing by the year in the name of profits how many corners could be cut? Could corner cutting then become part of the Androids programmes either by intent or otherwise? As long as the profit factor remains the major driving force then Artificial Intelligence will always harbour doubts about its reliability. AI could be an asset to humanity, all humanity of all countries, if tailor made to suit and assist in society’s needs. These needs do not include causing unemployment and poverty but, alas, while in the hands of private greedy capitalists, like all the means of production distribution and exchange, AI will always have a shadow cast over it. 

Unlike the film, M3GAN, one of the world’s leading AI manufacturers, Anthropic, have called for a pause in AI production. The reason for their call is some of their models are showing signs of “escaping human control” meaning the events in our film could well become reality as AI machines constantly improve their capabilities. This call for a pause in global production is dependent on all manufacturers agreeing which is unlikely. In Washington the Trump administration are opposed to such a pause, irrespective of the risks, in case China get the upper hand taking the lead in AI development. Anthropic will call a pause if they can get agreement to such a pause from all Artificial Intelligence manufacturers, if not, no pause - heaven forbid they lose profits. Better thousands of M3GAN’s could be on the loose terrorising humanity than the company lose one cent in profits more than their competitors or fall behind other manufacturers. The attitude of Trump and his administration is in line with the para-fascist (not to be mistaken with neo-fascist) policies of the White House which involves corporatism, business as part of government. The White House are concerned China will not comply to such a pause in production of AI, China will no doubt be worried the USA will not comply.

A spokesperson for Anthropic indicated “AI is accelerating at a rapid pace” and unfortunately there is no brake mechanism. The “accelerating pedal is down” but as of yet we do not have a brake to slow it down. “A pause” would allow time for us to find a braking system to slow down the rate AI is advancing. The question is; how many of the world’s AI manufacturers would take a pause in profits in order a braking system can be found? How many would be interested in finding such a brake? It is not in the interests of business to search for such a braking mechanism and, as we are constantly told, nothing gets in the way of business and, most importantly, profits!
     
Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.
I

M3GAN 🪶 Megan (AI)

Cam Ogie ✍The controversy surrounding the decision by Britain’s West Midlands Police to bar Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters from attending the Aston Villa fixture has exposed serious institutional failures—most notably in intelligence handling, evidentiary standards, and leadership oversight.

A preliminary review by Britain’s HMIC (His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary) confirmed that the force’s intelligence gathering suffered from “confirmation bias” and included multiple factual inaccuracies. Among the most serious errors was reference to a non-existent football fixture, which was later acknowledged not to have come from verified policing intelligence or open-source reporting, but from an AI-generated output produced using Microsoft Copilot.

Britain’s West Midlands chief constable later acknowledged that the error originated from Copilot rather than verified intelligence or conventional open-source research (Google). This matters because Copilot does not verify facts; it generates plausible-sounding text based on probability. When such output is accepted as intelligence without independent verification, the result is not a minor mistake but a collapse of evidentiary discipline.

In evidence initially given to British MPs, the chief constable suggested the erroneous information had been identified via a conventional Google search. He later corrected this account, explaining in a formal letter to the British Home Affairs Committee that the information was in fact produced through the use of Microsoft Copilot, an AI tool designed to generate text based on probabilistic pattern matching rather than factual verification.

This distinction is not trivial. Copilot does not “check” facts in the way human analysts or vetted intelligence sources do; it predicts plausible outputs based on training data. When such outputs are not independently verified, they can fabricate convincing but entirely false information—as occurred here. The inclusion of AI-generated fiction in a report used to inform a public safety decision represents a profound failure of professional standards and internal safeguards.

That failure fully justifies scrutiny of leadership and process.

The term “confirmation bias,” as used by Britain’s policing watchdog (HIMC), does not mean hostility toward a particular group. It refers to a well-documented cognitive error in which decision-makers:form:

  • an initial assumption or hypothesis, and then
  • give disproportionate weight to information that appears to support it, while
  • discounting, overlooking, or failing to rigorously test contradictory evidence.

In this case, confirmation bias meant that once Britain’s West Midlands Police force had identified Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters as a potential risk, insufficient scepticism was applied to material that appeared to reinforce that view, including unverified AI-generated content. The bias lay not in the existence of concern, but in the failure to adequately test the quality and provenance of evidence used to justify it.

Importantly, confirmation bias describes a process failure, not proof that the underlying risk assessment was invented or malicious.

While these procedural failures are serious, the political response has been unusually escalatory. The British Home Secretary publicly withdrew confidence in the chief constable before the conclusion of the parliamentary inquiry, and the episode was rapidly framed as a matter of “national importance.”

At the same time, prominent pro-Israel communal organisations moved rapidly to demand the chief constable’s dismissal (the Board of Deputies of British Jews called for him to be dismissed without delay). These interventions occurred within a well-documented context where organised pro-Israel advocacy groups maintain longstanding, open, and well-documented relationships across the British political establishment. Acknowledging this does not imply conspiracy; it reflects normal lobbying dynamics in Britain’s Westminster. However, it does help explain why scrutiny in this case has been unusually intense, narrowly focused, personalised, and politically charged — particularly when compared with responses to other serious policing failures. i.e.,

Hillsborough Disaster – A mass-fatality disaster involving evidence manipulation did not provoke instant ministerial declarations of lost confidence in police leadership. No immediate dismissal of the chief constable at the time, No Home Secretary publicly withdrew confidence during the initial revelations, and accountability took over 20 years, driven by victims’ families—not ministerial intervention.

Stephen Lawrence & Metropolitan Police - A finding of institutional racism across the UK’s largest police force did not trigger the same rapid, personalised political escalation. No immediate sacking of the Met Commissioner, reform recommendations were gradual and structural, and Ministers did not frame the issue as a sudden crisis of confidence in leadership.

The result has been a public narrative in which the collapse of a flawed police report is treated not merely as an institutional error, but as proof that the original risk assessment itself was illegitimate.

The collapse of the West Midlands Police report has increasingly been used to suggest that concerns about Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters were wholly unfounded or motivated by prejudice. That conclusion does not follow from the evidence.

Independent and verifiable sources—including UEFA disciplinary proceedings—show that Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters have, on multiple occasions, been sanctioned for racist or discriminatory behaviour. These are formal findings by football’s governing body, not speculative claims. They demonstrate that concerns about supporter behaviour were not conjured from thin air, even though the police failed to evidence those concerns properly in this instance. These findings do not excuse poor intelligence handling, but they do undermine the claim that police concern were illegitimate and arose from nothing. The current political framing risks replacing/substituting one form of confirmation bias with another - reverse confirmation bias which assumes that because the report was flawed, all underlying concern must have been baseless. Thus serving political reassurance rather than public safety. Public-order policing requires evidence-based assessment, not narrative absolution. The appropriate response to this episode is to demand higher evidentiary standards—not to erase documented patterns of supporter misconduct because acknowledging them is politically sensitive.

This case raises urgent questions for all of Britain’s police forces:

  • Are AI tools such as Microsoft Copilot being used elsewhere in intelligence preparation, briefings, or risk assessments?
  • What safeguards exist to prevent AI-generated fabrications from entering official records?
  • Is there any audit trail or disclosure requirement when AI tools are used?

Most seriously, the episode raises questions about past criminal cases. If AI-generated material has been used—directly or indirectly—in intelligence logs, surveillance justifications, charging decisions, or risk assessments, then the integrity of previous convictions may be open to challenge. Generative AI is not designed to meet evidential standards, and its unregulated use risks contaminating the justice process itself.

Conclusion

This case establishes two separates but connected failures:

  1. A policing failure, in which unverified AI-generated content from Microsoft Copilot was accepted into an intelligence product, compounded by confirmation bias and weak oversight.
  2. A political failure, in which that policing error has been leveraged—under sustained establishment pressure—to advance a one-sided narrative that shields certain actors from scrutiny while treating procedural failure as proof of moral innocence.

The lessons are clear:

💡 Accountability must be consistent.

💡AI tools must never substitute for verified intelligence.

💡 AI-generated content must never be treated as fact without rigorous verification.

💡 Policing accountability must be applied consistently—not intensified or softened from the disproportionate influence of well-connected interest groups— but insulated accordingly, regardless of the political sensitivities involved,

💡 Public institutions must not allow political pressure to transform due process into theatre.

💡 Decisions must be grounded in evidence.

💡 Tested against bias in all directions.

Until transparent national rules govern the use of generative AI in policing, the risk is not merely reputational. It is judicial

⏩ Cam Ogie is a Gaelic games enthusiast.

Confirmation Bias And AI - Specifically Microsoft’s Co-Pilot - The Real Concern For The British Politicised Response To The Maccabi Tel Aviv Report

The Guardian ★ Written by Jamie Grierson. Recommended by Cam Ogie.

An immigration barrister was found by a judge to be using AI to do his work for a tribunal hearing after citing cases that were “entirely fictitious” or “wholly irrelevant”.

Chowdhury Rahman was discovered using ChatGPT-like software to prepare his legal research, a tribunal heard. Rahman was found not only to have used AI to prepare his work, but “failed thereafter to undertake any proper checks on the accuracy”.

The upper tribunal judge Mark Blundell said Rahman had even tried to hide the fact he had used AI and “wasted” the tribunal’s time. Blundell said he was considering reporting Rahman to the Bar Standards Board. The Guardian has contacted Rahman’s firm for comment.

The matter came to light in the case of two Honduran sisters who claimed asylum on the basis that they were being targeted by a criminal gang in their home country. Rahman represented the sisters, aged 29 and 35. The case escalated to the upper tribunal.

Blundell rejected Rahman’s arguments, adding that “nothing said by Mr Rahman orally or in writing establishes an error of law on the part of the judge and the appeal must be dismissed”.

Then, in a rare ruling, Blundell went on to say in a postscript that there were “significant problems” within the grounds of appeal put before him.

He said that 12 authorities were cited in the paperwork by Rahman, but when he came to read the grounds, he noticed that “some of those authorities did not exist and that others did not support the propositions of law for which they were cited in the grounds”.

In his judgment, he listed 10 of these cases and set out “what was said by Mr Rahman about those actual or fictitious cases”.

Blundell said: “Mr Rahman appeared to know nothing about any of the authorities he had cited in the grounds of appeal he had supposedly settled in July this year. He had apparently not intended to take me to any of those decisions in his submissions.

Continue @ The Guardian.

Barrister Found To Have Used AI To Prepare For Hearing After Citing ‘Fictitious’ Cases

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ It is nearly thirty years since I sat my BA in politics, more years than I care to remember.

In those days what today we take for granted, computers etc were just becoming the norm. it was still possible and acceptable to complete assignments on a basic typewriter and, under certain circumstances, even hand written essays would be accepted providing they were legible. The new technology which has come in has been a great service without undermining the integrity of the degree or the credibility of the student showing an ability in reading the discipline. The object was, and I understand still is, the student shows an ability to degree standard of being able to read, absorb and logically conclude any question in their required field. For example, in my first year my assignment - coursework – was the principles of the ‘Vienna Settlement 1815’. Much reading as well as attending lectures was needed. 

Attending lectures was important and recording equipment was not allowed, notes had to be taken thus proving an ability to take note of what has been said by the lecturer and absorb what has been said. Of course, students missed lectures but providing this was an occasional occurrence as reading in the library could compensate. This also showed an ability to study the subject and come to a logical conclusion. Books such as A Dictionary of Politics were discouraged because the interpretation in such a book was only one variant. These books could be used as a backup but should not be used as a primary source, and never include such books in a bibliography.

The computers were a huge help, being able to save work and spell check were gifts without undermining the basic principles of university education. Plagiarism was then, as now I understand, a disciplinary offence which could have led to expulsion. Assignments should, rightly so, be the students own work and conclusion to the question set by the educational establishment including the lecturers and chosen from a list of possible questions by the student. It was not a requirement to agree with the lecturer when concluding an answer to a question. For example, one question was ‘which class made the most gains during the 19th century?’ and I answered, taking a line totally different to that of the lecturer and taking into account all the factory acts of the 19th century, the working-class made the most gains. This answer had to be explained and sources of information given. The question had to be looked at through objective eyes and not be mistaken with a slightly different question; ‘which class made most “political” gains in the 19th century? The two are different though related and could AI differentiate between the two? Even if such tools could differentiate, how could a student list their sources? Taking this approach is not a problem, more a challenge, but if a student takes this avenue, they must be able to substantiate their answer, proof of research, reading etc. Today we have such things as Google which will give an answer to a question, though not necessarily the correct one. So, my advice is to use Google only for such minor details as dates and years to save trawling through pages and pages of literature. Google has its uses but never, never become dependent on it, a disaster waiting to happen.

Today, a debate is raging as to how far, if at all, Artificial Intelligence should be allowed in universities and colleges. Many universities, including Oxbridge (Oxford and Cambridge), Manchester, Bristol and many others have banned the use of AI. To use AI for assignments or essays could constitute plagiarism and serious consequences for the student could follow. At very best it is ‘academic dishonesty’ and the student, if they do use AI and get away with it cannot in all honesty look themselves in the mirror and claim to have reached the required standard for their degree. Much of such a degree would have been done by a machine, admittedly very advanced ones like ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer) but nevertheless still producing artificially induced coursework! 

Trinity College, Dublin, has recently issued a warning to all students, Postgraduate and Undergraduate, against the use of AI. According to Trinity News:

college have warned students against the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in assessments, highlighting that their use constitutes a breach of academic integrity, with “serious consequences for your academic progress”. The email stressed the importance of students maintaining academic integrity.

I sat my masters at Trinity and know their marking is very stringent. Artificial Intelligence will also reduce the ability of the student’s mind to be objective and agile. It will relegate the student from being one of the top twenty-percent to just another academic of sorts!

For myself, as a postgraduate, I think AI should be banned out of hand. Any coursework done on one of these machines totally undermines the degree a student may have got by cheating. The integrity of the entire discipline will be undermined. It totally undermines the credibility of the student and the value of the degree. Cheating is exactly what it is, it is not a degree and should never be accepted as one. How can a student claim to have researched, studied and concluded a question if a machine has done it for them? Should a student take this avenue it will be the AI tool which answers the question posed and writes the assignment. Much easier, I admit, but fraudulent.

I took great pleasure in researching and learning about the discipline I had chosen, politics (philosophy in my masters), and my only massive mistake was, because I was on for a first during my second year I went on the piss. This proved almost fatal and if the lecturer had not taken me in hand, under her wing so to speak, it would no doubt have been the end for me. As it turned out I pulled myself together and got back on track. I managed this without any Artificial Intelligence and having left what passed for secondary education with precisely nothing, unless a couple of GCEs count for anything, and having spent most of my life running round the various football terraces of England and Europe with Man Utd I, for once, had achieved something apart from a criminal record. 

My advice to any student if, in future, AI does become available and accepted in universities (hopefully never), and it probably one day will, don’t use it. It undermines your work, you lose credibility and even if the student does not tell anybody they have cheated by having their assignments written by ChatGPT they themselves will know the truth, that they have cheated and lied their way to a degree. The only exception I can think of is if a student is taking a degree on the discipline of Artificial Intelligence, then, of course a knowledge of how to use the equipment must be shown. Otherwise, leave alone, you’ll feel much better for it, after all, what is the use of being unable to analyse and conclude a simple question but being able to talk to a machine?

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

Should AI Be Allowed In Universities?

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)