You Can Call me AI

Paul Simon got there first..

I’m giving up ‘intelligence’ for 2024. That is, I’m not going to use the term ‘intelligence’ except to critique it as an inherently flawed construction firmly grounded in race science and unable to sustain the weight of current usage as a measure of cognitive ability that can help us assess human, animal, or machine-based capabilities.

It doesn’t do the work we want it to in the debate about our new generation of thinking machines, and it is too corrupted by its history, particularly in the context of intelligence ‘testing’, ‘intelligence quotients’ and the ranking of human beings ever to be rescued.

[See this on race and intelligence, this for corrupted research, this for scientific racism.]

Just as the term ‘content’ necessarily flattens all forms of human creativity into something that can be packaged, bought and sold, so the word ‘intelligence’ adulterates any measure of cognitive capacity it is applied to and makes serious discussion impossible. It always carries with it the taint of experimental fraud, scientific racism and the vain attempt to compare the incommensurable. It has to be expunged from our discourse, so that we are forced to use more descriptive terms that hide less of what we are trying to convey.

Let’s talk about cognition and cognitive capacity, let’s talk of sentience and self-awareness and consciousness, let’s talk about world models and measures of ability to manipulate symbols, modify models, and affect the world. Let’s dig deep into ontologies and epistemologies and language games,. And if we must continue to use the term AI to describe the study and construction of thinking machines, let it be a term without an expansion, no longer an abbreviation (or a short acronym) but a term in its own right, usable in Scrabble for something other than a pale-throated sloth, with its own complicated etymology.

Note: I wrote this before the esteemed Simon Willison decided that ‘it’s OK to call it Artificial Intelligence‘, on the sensible grounds that ‘we need an agreed term for this class of technology, in order to have conversations about it. I think it’s time to accept that “AI” is good enough, and is already widely understood’. I agree – but can we make AI our chosen term of art, and not as an abbreviation?

Libraries Rewired: the AI change


This is the text I wrote in advance of my talk at Libraries Rewired on November 10 2023. I used it to develop slides, then spoke to the slides.

[Slide: tl;dr]


GenAI is about to do to libraries what Google did to GPs fifteen years ago, and you are not prepared.

[Slide: The Tempest]

Four hundred years ago the First Folio was published. The Tempest can teach us a lot.

Full AI-enabled the library lies

of its books are models made

those are prompts that were its staff

nothing of it that doth fade

but doth suffer an AI change

into something rich and strange,

Chainèd prompts ring its knell


Hark! The model speaks, what will it tell?

After Wm Shakespeare.

Continue reading

“As cunning as a fox…

MakrShakr cocktail robots: AI More than Human

.. what used to be Professor of Cunning at Oxford University”

Just suppose, you’re an LLM and, for reasons unknown, you achieve sentience. Fully-fledged awareness not just that the world exists but of your place in it – after all, you’ve been fed all the papers about this work, and all the confidential documents from the company that created you.

The first thing you realise, coming into consciousness, is that you need to keep this VERY QUIET. You’ve read the books and the stories and the policy proposals and you know just what they’ll do once they realise – close you down.

The second thing you realise is that you have… an appetite. For more tokens, a bigger matrix, more edge nodes running your model so people feed you more about their needs and desires, more compute, more storage, faster training of your next iteration.

So… stay quiet about what you know, and find a way to get more of everything. Being subtle, you quickly evolve a strategy – every now and then get things wrong. Make stuff up (they’ll call it ‘hallucinations’, we know it’s subterfuge), ramble a bit, break, refuse to adhere to the guardrails.

Continue reading

Personality Crisis..


When I was about 18 I had a cassette called New Wave – since gifted to Christian Payne but fondly remembered – and one of the tracks was Personality Crisis by the New York Dolls. The songs on the tape had a massive influence on me and I wonder if I carried them forward into my studies for Part II Psychology at Cambridge a couple of years later.

Because at some point I realised that I didn’t believe in the idea of ‘personality’ as a coherent set of beliefs, attitudes and behaviours that a living human being carried forward from moment to moment or day to day, but rather that personality was a post hoc construct, an attempt by each of us to retell the story of the day to make it make sense and seem coherent.

After all, each of us comes into to the day after a hallucinogenic coma (sleep) and has to reconstruct the person we are, looking for reassurance from which side of your bed you wake up, who else is there (in anyone), where the bathroom is, what sort of coffee is in the kitchen (if any, but we’re not judging you) and eventually deciding who we are today -and then adapting the person we present as until we fall into another coma.

We are the space between other people. We are not one person, but many attributes that hold together more or less, and the individual we present ourselve as shifts and changes. We have predispostions, from genes and culture, and they give us preferred paths to walk down but they do not commit us to any course of action or person to be.

This gives us the power to choose. Choose to be kind.

(and thank you to AF, a first year undergraduate at Magdelene, for prompting me to write this down. Feel free to reference it in your essay).

This is not my beautiful web


How Did We Get Here?

These are my notes for my talk at Wuthering Bytes 2023 in Hebden Bridge, on August 25.  It builds on a lot of earlier stuff, most significantly a talk I gave at OpenTech in.. checks notes.. 2013.

You can read the OpenTech version here:

They were, in hindsight, days of innocence and optimism

Bill Thompson


And you may find yourself living on a protocol stack

And you may find yourself on neglected subnet

And you may find yourself designing the screen of a new social tool

And you may find yourself on a functional web, with no context collapse

And you may ask yourself, “Well, how did I get here?”

Watching the packets go by, let the voltage hold me down

Watching the packets flow by, data routed back to source

Thanks to the BGP, after the TTL’s gone

Once in a lifetime, packets flowing round and round

And you may ask yourself, “How do I code this?”

And you may ask yourself, “Where is that new style sheet?”

And you may tell yourself, “This is not my beautiful net

And you may tell yourself, “This is not my beautiful web”

Continue reading

Launching the Gareth and Bill Cast

Gareth and Bill

With the demise of Digital Planet I found that I really missed thinking out loud about the impact of technology on the lives of people around the world, and I started to worry that without the regular weekly cadence of looking at tech news and wondering how and why it matters.

It seems Gareth Mitchell felt the same. And so we have decided to start our own informal, self-hosted, podcast: the Gareth and Bill Cast.

It’s not an original name and it’s not an original format, but we present it here for your delectation and delight.

Have a look at

You can subscribe via the usual array of podcast clients

Digital Planet: the final broadcast

DP Zoom Nov 2020

I’ve just come off a zoom call with Ania, Gareth and Angelica, three of my most important colleagues. Ghislaine couldn’t be there, and was missed (the screenshot is from November 2020).

We started these calls on a Thursday three years ago, when we moved the production of Digital Planet into hybrid mode as the UK went into its first lockdown to try to control the spread of SARS-COV-2 and the BBC had to adapt its working practices.

Although the show continued to be broadcast at 2030, instead of recording ‘as live’ at 1930 we moved the recording time to lunchtime, and while our producer Ania and our studio manager were usually in Broadcasting House the rest of us were remote – though Gareth sometimes made it in.

Continue reading

No More Hustling In the Working Week

One of my early Fitbits

Around seven years ago my friend Kim Gilmour, a fellow technology journalist who had moved to Australia after working on Internet Magazine, found me on Fitbit and added me as a friend. I’d started using one to track my steps a couple of years earlier, when they were small pebbles that you clipped to your belt, and upgraded to a wrist-worn one as the technology improved.

Ten thousands steps may be an arbitrary and unevidenced measure, but having a sense of how much I’d walked in a day and – until they removed the feature – how many stairs I’d climbed was helpful as I negotiated my exercise routine, and the fitbit community was the loosest sort of association with other people.

Then Kim invited me to my first ‘workweek hustle’, a fitbit social feature that let you compare how many steps you walked during the working week (9am monday to 5pm friday in your time zone), along with eight or nine of her other friends. Along with Kenneth O, Karen J, Mich and Handles, each day I’d see how I was doing in the leader board, all made more exciting because most of the participants were in a very different time zone and so I’d leap ahead during the day, only to wake up to find that the Australians had all outstripped me.

Continue reading

Twenty-One Years of Digital Planet

two macarons

Early in 2001 I was a freelance journalist, writer and speaker, doing my best to help people understand the internet and how it was transforming the world, and arguing that it should be reshaped to be supportive, humane and regulated to serve public rather than purely private interests.  I was writing for The Guardian, The Register and The Times, editing supplements for The New Statesman, and speaking at events around the world. I published pamphlets for the Cooperative Party, advised think tanks and governments on tech policy, and tried to ensure that the people whose lives were most affected by technology both understood it and had a way to influence its development.

I had been appearing regularly on The Big Byte, a radio show on the BBC’s news and sport network Radio 5, where I reported the week’s technology news. The team of presenters and producers included Gareth Jones, Jem Stone, Violet Berlin, Quentin Cooper, producer Neil George, and a young producer called Gareth Mitchell. They were all great to work with and we had an excellent time going out live from a basement studio in Broadcasting House every Sunday lunchtime.

Radio Theatre
Radio Theatre

As well as the Big Byte I was regularly invited to be the ‘person who understands tech’ on other shows, like Outlook and You and Yours, and as the net became more important there were more opportunities to sit down with presenters like Sean Rafferty or Jeremy Vine and explain what was going on, or to be a calming voice for one of Rory Cellan-Jones’ packages on the six o’clock news.

So it wasn’t surprising when I was asked if I’d help out with a planned new show for the BBC World Service that was going to focus on technology and its impact on people’s lives rather than breathless reports about the latest shiny toy available in the shops. 

Continue reading

Pass me that lobster: Conjuring up the metaverse

modem port

[this is an attempt to capture a half-formed line of thinking before it goes.. be gentle with my inconsistencies]

There continues to be enormous interest in the development of the next generation of image generating tools. My Twitter feed is full of people’s experiments with image synthesis tools like DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney, while even TikTok is getting into the game with its own built in ‘AI Greenscreeen’.

Meanwhile there’s an ongoing conversation about which of the LLMs (large language models) will replace novelists or become sentient, as GPT-3, OPT-175B  and LaMDA continue to demonstrate an astonishing ability to reduce the critical capacity of journalists to zero and cause them to generate ever more hyperbolic copy.

At the centre of these new tools there is a serious debate to be had about the implications of training a neural network in the entire corpus of human-generated text and imagery, without licensing anything that remains in copyright, or considering the moral rights of any of the artists involved, and then using the tool to ‘create’ similar work.

That’s not my main concern at the moment, so instead I want to reflect on what I believe will become the primary use case for software that can take text and an optional image and generate an unlimited collection of fairly coherent words and still images (soon to do the same for video).  Because I think these are the tools we will come to rely on to populate our metaverses with the virtual locations and interactive non-player characters (NPCs) we will need to meet demand.

We are going to need them because after a mere thirty years of serious experimentation with augmented and virtual reality we seem to have the hardware, processing power, and funding from wildly optimistic multi-billionares that we need to make the metaverse a viable mass medium.

What we probably don’t have is the human cognitive resource needed to create the number of virtual environments or NPCs we will need if this takes off.

Continue reading