Best Of

Great thread on AI and writing and being an editor in the 2020s.



"...The whole thing frigid as a robot's bare metal arsecheek."

https://bsky.app/profile/marrrtha.bsky.social/post/3m75qij6j7c26

'I feel pissed off that my years of editorial experience and genuine, lifelong enthusiasm for the work is being channelled into a new role as a professional fluffer for a large-language model.'

I've retired from translation as most of the work is now done by AI, leaving mainly translations that need a poorly-paid once-over. I'm not really complaining, as AI does a decent job of it, as good or better than most human efforts (my only criticism is that it doesn't flag up when it just skips a few words), but it's made me think hard before advising step-grandchildren on university courses - if I was 35 and suddenly 90% of my work disappeared, I'd be dismayed. It may be that trades involving manual work are actually a better career bet financially than borrowing £30K for most academic subjects at university?

New: Former Conservative donor Christopher Harborne has given Reform UK £9 million.

It's the largest ever donation by any individual to any British political party, excluding money left in wills

https://x.com/hzeffman/status/1996496294404309410

Blimey.

Even if one believes that people are free to do what they like with their money, one individual dropping that much cash warps the game on a way that matters because it's not a game.

(Incidentally, got a paid-for mailshot from Reform recently. They're going big on crime and Khan, even though neither of those is really a borough issue.

There was a survey asking what sort of crime I was most concerned about. Sadly "taking bribes from hostile states" wasn't an option.)

FPT -

Live facial recognition cameras planned for every town centre
Labour proposals would allow police to compare photos of crime suspects against images of 45 million Britons in the passport database
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/12/04/live-facial-recognition-cameras-planned-for-every-town-cent/ (£££)

The Telegraph's front page lead. Older PBers will remember the trial rollout in August, which is technically not all that long ago. Still, David Lammy said he wants to speed up trials.

And it's not just the police: Other public bodies, beyond police, and private companies, such as retailers, could be allowed to use facial recognition technology under the new legal framework. But I expect there will be safeguards to stop it being misused to find runaways from domestic or sexual violence.

End of jury trials, digital services act, facial recognition, postponement of elections, “assisted” dying, 40-week abortions…

Is UK turning slowly into China?

Given the new Chinese Spy centre one can only assume the facial recognition technology is being rolled out for them. Classic Keir selling the country out and not even getting any belt & road money in return.

Suicide is the number one cause of death of young men in this country, but there is no safe and humane way of doing it. Driving people to obscene acts like jumping in front of trains, of off bridges, or causing horrific scenes for their loved ones to discover.

Nobody should be left to feel that a train, or similar, is their only way out.

If someone wants to die they should be offered support, eg Samaritans style, but if they have firmly made their mind up there should be a safer and more humane option than stepping in front of trains.

Assisted death should be an option to everyone who desires it, whatever their reasons. Their life, their choice.

The love of my life had terrible depression. One dark night - many years after we'd had to separate - she climbed up to the top of a cliff overlooking a disused quarry and threw herself to her death into the rancid water down below.

I often think how wretched that final walk must have been. In the dark. Bushes scratching. The wind.

So yeah - more mental health support and other options would be kinda good - male or female.

In response to others, and personal, here's why I support AD. My father was very active in his 80s - still tending his garden and allotment, socialising and so forth. But around 90 his body gave way. He had to leave his house, utter misery for him, and move to a care home. He was immobile and incontinent. He was as miserable as fuck. There was no prospect of recovery. But his brain was still absolutely fine. And he wanted to die, because the quality of his life was absolutely zero. He even asked us, his sons, to dispense with him. Of course we said no. So, he spent the last 2.5 years of his life, which had been absolutely splendid until then, in abject misery. For no good reason.

That sounds awful and I am sympathetic.

I am still opposed to the AD bill though. The safeguards against coercion by staff and/or relatives are not robust enough. A lot should be done to improve End of Life and palliative care first. This is a very valid alternative for many, and doesn't leave patients feeling coerced. I also make a distinction between assisted suicide and assisted dying, the latter requiring active medical intervention.

Bart is being a bigger idiot than usual. Suicide rarely occurs by rational decision in clear consciousness. Very often it is an impulsive act by those with treatable mental disorders.

Suicide is the number one cause of death of young men in this country, but there is no safe and humane way of doing it. Driving people to obscene acts like jumping in front of trains, of off bridges, or causing horrific scenes for their loved ones to discover.

Nobody should be left to feel that a train, or similar, is their only way out.

If someone wants to die they should be offered support, eg Samaritans style, but if they have firmly made their mind up there should be a safer and more humane option than stepping in front of trains.

Assisted death should be an option to everyone who desires it, whatever their reasons. Their life, their choice.

The love of my life had terrible depression. One dark night - many years after we'd had to separate - she climbed up to the top of a cliff overlooking a disused quarry and threw herself to her death into the rancid water down below.

I often think how wretched that final walk must have been. In the dark. Bushes scratching. The wind.

So yeah - more mental health support and other options would be kinda good - male or female.

Christ, that's awful. I'm so sorry. x

EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.

The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process

https://x.com/jessicaelgot/status/1996237497626456337?s=20

https://t.co/lZR8lCnCZz

That's not news is it and it's a matter of conscience not party political.
Some people want to die with dignity rather than in pain.
A friend's parent recently passed with metastatic cancer that had spread to the spine, they were in constant pain at the end and wanted to pass several weeks before they did.
My parent has late stage Alzheimer's, they had clearly expressed a wish not to exist as they do now, physically they're in good health so it could be years of cognitive decline, this bill wouldn't help them, but it might help some people.
It's not going to be compulsory FFS, it'll give a small number of people a choice.

If it's only about those who choose it why does the Bill allow doctors to suggest it? Suicide is not a medical treatment. There are no clinical indices for it. A doctor is in no position to know whether someone should commit suicide - let alone suggest it. Suicide is not a medical treatment.

Why are the training slides which the NHS is already developing saying that the training should be targeted at oncologists and palliative care doctors?

Why is there no conscience opt-out? What about people who do not believe in it, whether medical professionals or hospices? Why are they not given a choice?

Why have those proposing the Bill refused all safeguards - especially to prevent coercion?

Why is the government refusing to find palliative care properly?

Why did Starmer say in the Commons recently that the law should be "effective" and "enforceable" but notably refused to say that it should be "safe"?

Why is Falconer saying that being poor is a reason to get the state to help you kill yourself? There was a time when the Labour Party thought its job was to help the poor, to alleviate their poverty. Now it thinks they should be killed instead.

Every single medical group, the disabled groups, those who know about coercion, coroners etc - everyone with any expertise in the care of the very sick etc.,has said this Bill is unsafe and will lead to the forced deaths of the vulnerable. And the Labour Party is the one seeking to push it through with minimal scrutiny, without a proper mandate and by bullying those who raise concerns.

Last week I told my oncologist that on no account was he or any of the team treating me even to think about suggesting suicide to me. He told me that he wouldn't and that he didn't believe in it. But I now have to worry - on top of everything else - if this bill becomes law that when doctors tell me there is nothing more they can do for me - whether this is really a medical assessment or whether they are under financial pressure to stop treating me because it will save the NHS money and push me into suicide instead because to the state my life is no longer worth living. That I should even have to worry about this is unconscionable. This Bill will break the trust a patient should be able to have in their doctor. It will break the NHS if it becomes a service which thinks that the administration of death is what it should be doing.

Those on here who handwave this fear away can fuck off, frankly. And I never ever want to hear again from Labour Party supporters that they are somehow morally better than everyone else. When the state adopts an attitude which views the sick, the disabled, the old, the abused, the mentally ill, the mentally distressed, the unhappy, the poor as lives which are not worth living, as people who should be helped to die rather than helped to live, a moral Rubicon has been crossed. "Let's kill useless mouths to feed for the greater good" is an experiment that's been tried before and it did not end well.