British politicians are apparently using ChatGPT to write their speeches — one MP claims it has become “absurd”

by

There’s a persistent concern that AI is being excessively employed, with tools such as ChatGPT potentially leading to the generation of “AI-created content that lacks quality,” and it appears that British MPs might be unintentionally contributing to this trend.

According to an examination by Pimlico Journal (as reported by The Telegraph), there has been an increase in the usage of everyday artificial intelligence language by members of parliament in their speeches given at Parliament.

It appears that this practice is not universally accepted, as evidenced by a current Conservative MP criticizing it for making the House of Commons seem ridiculous.

One phrase that’s generating a lot of interest concerning AI applications appears to be “Rising to speak.” This expression has roots dating back nearly 200 years in the House of Commons, but it has seen a substantial surge in recent times. As of this year, it has been used 635 times, as opposed to 231 times in the year 2024, mirroring the same trajectory as the growth of AI tools.

It seems quite ordinary, doesn’t it? However, let me clarify, the Conservative Member who expressed dissent towards the practice highlighted an interesting detail: the phrase “I rise to speak” is more commonly used in American contexts and was not traditionally prevalent in the House of Commons.

According to a report by The Telegraph, Tom Tugendhat, the Conservative representative for Tonbridge, made a statement in the House of Commons this week.

In the press releases generated by government officials on ChatGPT, all we seem to hear is repetition of ‘I rise to speak’. This phrase, while American in origin, may not be familiar to many. However, its constant use serves to highlight the growing absurdity of this place, making it necessary for continued usage.

On the subsequent day, he also took to social media to deliver more critique regarding his colleagues’ use of AI, expressing his views further.

If you rely too heavily on others to guide your arguments or transform written materials into speeches without expressing your own thoughts, it raises questions about who you’re truly advocating for. It seems unlikely that you are representing the electorate in this way. [Tweet: September 10, 2025]

Irrespective of personal political views, I find myself in agreement with this sentiment. Elected officials, such as Members of Parliament, are chosen by the public to serve as their voice. This role encompasses not only those who cast a vote for them but also those who did not.

A more simplified version could be: It’s not ideal for our representatives to stand up and speak for us when they aren’t actually using their own words.

It’s important to note that although the investigation was extensive and showed indications of AI involvement, no one mentioned in the report had offered any comments on the matter.

It’s arguably acceptable to employ AI in certain duties associated with being a Member of Parliament, such as administrative tasks. However, it is completely unacceptable and downright disrespectful for a politician to read words generated by an AI model like ChatGPT as if they were their own when standing in the House of Commons. This behavior borders on laziness.

It seems that AI does not accurately reflect or cater to the needs of the public it is intended to serve, a point I believe most of us would concur with.

Read More

2025-09-12 20:40