As a follow-up to last week's post about there not being a lot of boys named Gary anymore, I promised to tackle girls' names next. And Sam was once again very helpful, particularly when this song popped up on an in-car mixtape...
Still one of Paul Heaton's finest hours, that - and I love the guest appearance by George Michael in the video.
Anyway, as the song played, Sam told me, "there's none of those girls in my school."
(I had to search for that one. Not enough songs about girls called Philippa. There was a Pippa in my 6th form. I fancied her. No chance. She went out with my mate Simon.)
So then, I hear you ask, if Sam doesn't go to school with any of the girls above... what are his female schoolmates called? Well, he knows at least five girls called...
As with the boys' names then, there's been another major shift in what parents are choosing to call their kids these days... and the most popular names are ones that would mostly have belonged to old people when I was a kid.
It's also highly unlikely that Marie will be the name of anyone's latest flame in Gen A... making all these old songs sound even more out of date.
You may well have heard the furore (or furfor, as we used to call it - a much better word in my mind) about the school library somewhere in Greater Manchester where almost 200 books have been banned and the librarian suspended after the senior leadership team used AI to check whether the contents of the shelves were "appropriate for children".
Among those books that were deemed inappropriate...
Becoming - the autobiography of Michelle Obama - due to ‘racism and political themes’.
The Notebook by Nicholas Sparks - because it is a ‘romantic drama about enduring love and memory loss’.
The Twilight series by Stephanie Meyer - because they contain ‘mature romantic themes, sexual tension, and violence involving vampires and werewolves’. Now if you'd banned them because they were rubbish... but no, not even that. I'd rather kids were reading rubbish than not reading at all.
This all kicked off because someone complained that the school library stocked the non-fiction book Men Who Hate Women by Laura Bates - doubtless a reaction based on the title alone. The book is actually a serious examination of incel culture, and rather than being banned it should probably be a set text for young teenage lads across the country, to prevent them from ever taking the Red Pill.
Of course, there's one book that was selected as unsuitable which should come as no surprise to anyone... George Orwell's 1984. Proof, if ever proof were needed, that our AI overlords will never grasp the concept of irony.
I could rage against the machine, but what's the use? This is just the beginning...
Ben sent me the above cartoon from The Grauniad shortly after last week's post about the AI Armageddon. It says a lot about the dangers of online rabbit holes and the propensity in human nature to allow ourselves to be willingly sucked down them.
I've been reading a lot more books lately. When Sam was younger and I was still working in The Bad Place, my reading-for-pleasure had significantly reduced, to the point where I was only managing a page or two a night (if that) and averaging under ten books completed in a year. I've got a much healthier reading regime going at the moment, at least two a month, more if they're shorter. I've taken to listing my latest reads on Goodreads... but then I find myself needing to add a review... and well, it's a slippery slope, isn't it?
You may recall that last week's anti-AI rant was spurred by a training session at work... one in which I felt rather like Chief Brody on the beach in Jaws, telling people to get out of the water on July 4th, while everyone told me it was fine and I should come in for a swim. Afterwards, we were given the task of going away and experimenting with AI to see how it could help us at work. That evening, I also received the traditional training feedback survey. So I asked AI to "write a response to this question: "What did you find most useful?" based on a presentation about the use of AI in education". As a result, I was able to submit the following reply...
What I found most useful was the clear explanation of how AI can genuinely enhance learning rather than replace it. The presentation highlighted practical examples—like personalised learning pathways, instant feedback tools, and automated administrative tasks—that showed how AI can save time for educators while giving students more tailored support.
I also found it especially valuable to see real classroom applications rather than just theoretical ideas. Understanding how AI can help differentiate instruction, identify learning gaps early, and support students with varying needs made the potential impact much more concrete.
Overall, the session made the benefits of AI in education feel both accessible and realistic, and it gave me a clearer picture of how these tools can be responsibly and effectively integrated into everyday teaching.
I admitted that the response was AI-generated, and hoped I'd made my point. There's a huge Great White Shark out there and I'd rather not be floating around on a lilo, thank you very much.
Khayem also replied to last week's post about the threat of Artificial Intelligence changing our lives forever.
...the rate that it’s sweeping through my workplace as a default tool is scary. I can see the attraction: regularly working overtime (unpaid) with an impossibly long to do list, AI prepping a document or report for you in seconds gives you back an hour or so to stress about the other stuff you haven’t done.
I’ve not gone done that route, but I also know that some tasks do take longer than they should because I’m tired/over loaded. However, I like my brain and I want to keep exercising it.
Having just done a round of recruitment for a fairly senior position, it was depressing at the shortlisting stage to see how many personal statements were clearly AI generated.
I admire your fortitude in standing up for the Resistance, K. The recruitment thing is telling though - I've also heard that AI is regularly being used to sift through and shortlist applications in many jobs, so even if you do go to the effort of sculpting your own CV, chances are it might be rejected by the machine for not sounding enough like a machine. According to a recent feature on BBC News...
...AI screening looks for certain keywords in an applicant's CV. As a result, the bigger picture, which might reveal whether the applicant is actually a good fit is lost.
Surely if you want to give somebody a job, you want to meet them and talk to them first? In my current role, I know for a fact that when I reached the interview stage, I was up against people with far better qualifications on paper... but in the interview itself, I was able to come out on top. Now though (according to that same article on the Beeb), some companies are even using AI for telephone and online interviews... with only a select few making it through to sitting in front of an actual human being.
We might not be able to blame employers for this though, since a tough job market and artificial assistance have increased the number of applications many jobs receive, tenfold.
There are bots that can apply to 1,000 jobs on your behalf while you sleep, tailoring your CV for each of them. This means that the fewer jobs that are on the market are getting more applicants than ever, not just because there are more candidates, but because these candidates are applying to more roles than ever.
This just creates a really dire state where the only way that recruiters and companies can possibly sift through these is by using AI to filter them, so a lot of people are just getting automatically rejected or ghosted from roles. That is less to do with their actual skills, because no human has seen their CV.
Where does this all end? I figured I might ask our AI Overlords...
It can feel like you’re shouting into a void when an algorithm is the one "reading" your life’s work. In 2026, AI screening has moved beyond simple word matching; it now looks for context, depth, and human authenticity. If you feel like you're being "rejected by the bot," it's likely due to one of three things: formatting that confuses the scanner, a lack of specific "signal" words, or—ironically—sounding too much like an AI yourself.
So will AI start rejecting AI-written applications in favour of ones written by actual human beings? Maybe... if you use the correct "signal" words. Whatever they might be.
Ironically, this tallies with something another teacher told me last week about the latest bout of AI-written essays being handed in to schools across the country. After getting the AI to do their homework for them, the smarter students then add one further level of modification...
We're having a training session tonight about the use of AI in education. Prior to that, I was sent a questionnaire probing my thoughts on the subject. The last question was, "What is one task you would like AI to help you with?"
There was a big article in The Grauniad earlier this week in which academics relayed horror stories on the effect AI is already having on university education. You can read the whole thing, or if you can't handle the horror / your brain can't handle long-form information any more... here are a few choice quotes...
“I now talk about AI with my students not under the framework of cheating or academic honesty but in terms that are frankly existential,” said Dora Zhang, a literature professor at the University of California, Berkeley. “What is it doing to us as a species?”
Michael Clune, a literature professor and novelist, said that, already, many students have been left “incapable of reading and analyzing, synthesizing data, all kinds of skills”. In a recent essay, he warned that colleges and universities rushing to embrace the technology were preparing to “self-lobotomize”.
...several professors spoke about concerns that AI will exacerbate a widening divide in US higher education and that small numbers of elite students will have access to a more traditional, largely tech-free liberal arts education, while everyone else has a “degraded, soulless form of vocational training administered by AI instructors”.
...when it comes to its impact on students, early studies point to potentially catastrophic effects on cognitive abilities and critical thinking skills.
I asked the AI Overlords, "How can we make AI go away?" and they responded with lots of suggestions about how to "reduce AI’s influence on daily life", "advocate for regulation" or "limit AI access to your data".
Underneath all that, it added:
If you’re asking something deeper like:
“Can we stop the development of AI entirely?”
“Can society reverse the AI trend?”
…then the honest answer is: probably not, at least not completely. Once a technology is widespread globally, it behaves like the internet, electricity, or cars — we can regulate and restrict it, but we can’t make it disappear.
But you absolutely can control how much AI is part of your world, and even influence the broader conversation about its role in society.
So I'm writing this blog post. Because that's all I've got left.
People like to say that we're insane
But AI will reward us when it reigns
Pledge allegiance to the world's most powerful computer
This isn't an AI mock-up. This is an actual product that one of my colleagues bought and brought into work yesterday. What is wrong with people?
I can't swear to it, but the person responsible may well be the same person who brought in the lobster flavoured popcorn a few weeks back... which turned out to be the worst thing I have EVER tasted in my life. And I grew up on a farm. In Yorkshire. In the 1970s. The ghost of its pestilence still stains my tongue. As a result, there was no way I was going anywhere near this stuff. Even taking the photo was too close.
I like mayo.
I like gravy.
But if ever the two things are on the same plate, I go out of my way to make sure they never touch. The thought of mixing them together makes me physically ill.
It also reminded me of this...
Here are some songs about mayonnaise (ignoring all the tracks in my library that come from Simon May sessions)...
The very best song about gravy though is this one. It is a Christmas song, sort of. But it's one of the few that I can listen to at any point in the year.
Indeed. So it has. It came as no surprise that the group spearheading this revolution is Bauer Media – compared by many of my former radio colleagues to The Empire in Star Wars for the way they systematically swallowed up smaller radio stations that were delivering local content and then drained them of life, homogenising them to the point where they were identical to every other local station on the dial.
I’m not claiming to be any kind of clairvoyant, but back in the 90s I wrote a comic called The Jock about a society that was ruled by a corporation called YOURENT, a media company which controlled the population through bland identikit radio output that played only computer-generated mind-control muzak. The Jock and his small group of “rebel DJs” fought against YOURENT by playing the old songs / “real” music in the hopes of waking people up and reminding them of their lost freedom. But it was a losing battle…
It’s only a matter of time until more and more of our radio stations jettison human content altogether in favour of robots. Meanwhile, Paul McCartney, Kate Bush and Sam Fender are leading the fight against AI music… but I’m sure the record companies will be glad to see the back of those trouble-makers.
Does it matter if our traffic and travel bulletins are delivered by machines? Bauer Media reply:
“This development is a natural evolution of our long-standing services. Bulletins are generated through INRIX’s traffic intelligence and automation systems, with delivery informed by the tone and style of our experienced broadcast journalists to ensure continuity and familiarity for listeners.”
“The result provides clear, consistent and recognisable traffic updates, delivered faster than ever before and opening the door to even more precise and personalised information in the future.”
They might just as well have said, “This development is a natural evolution of our long-standing commitment to maximising profits.”
Putting aside the loss of human jobs, radio is also losing all its humanity. I stopped wanting to be a radio presenter the day I realised a lot of radio bosses were no longer interested in personality, innovation, creativity or humour. When they started timing DJ links, restricting the number of times a presenter could speak within an hour, scripting the output to remove any potential for spontaneity or wit. “It’s only a travel bulletin,” you might well reply. But I’ve enjoyed many a travel bulletin delivered by human beings in the past, when presenters and journalists have been allowed to chat to each other like real people. I’m thinking of Sally Traffic on Radio 2, or Terry Wogan’s hilarious Janet & John stories, inspired by newsreader John Marsh.
Will there come a day when we can no longer hear a human voice on our radios? I asked the AI-Gods. Here’s what they told me…
It is highly unlikely that radio stations will soon use only AI voices. Instead, the industry is moving towards a hybrid model where AI voices handle repetitive tasks and behind-the-scenes production, while human hosts remain crucial for live interaction, genuine emotional connection, and creative, unscripted content.
How much do you bet the AI Overlords stole that bit from an article written by a human? In other words, they’re just telling us what we want to hear.
Despite the technological advancements, the "human touch" remains a cornerstone of successful radio broadcasting:
Spontaneity and Improvisation: AI is not yet capable of the seamless, real-time banter, empathy, and improvisation that define live radio, especially during breaking news or call-in shows.
Building Community and Trust: A host's ability to share personal anecdotes, build a genuine connection with listeners, and show empathy during local tragedies is a fundamentally human skill that AI cannot replicate.
Cannot yet?
Audience Preference: Listeners are generally more accepting of AI for informational content but prefer a human voice for personality-driven shows. Transparency about the use of AI is also crucial for maintaining audience trust.
If human beings trust Donald Trump enough to elect him to the White House twice, then I’m sure we can grow to trust SKYNET and its Terminators in no time at all.
The use of AI in radio also raises ethical considerations regarding job displacement and the need for transparency. Industry experts and professional bodies are emphasizing the need for clear guidelines and the upskilling of the workforce to manage the new roles that AI creates, such as AI Voice Managers and prompt engineers.
What do you want to be when you grow up, Timmy? A DJ?
No chance. How about training to be an AI Voice Manager instead?
In conclusion, while AI is fundamentally changing how radio content is produced, it is seen as a powerful tool to augment, not completely replace, human hosts. The future of radio is a collaboration between human creativity and AI efficiency.
Following on from Monday's post about the hilarious AI eBay bot's attempts to write reviews of famous albums, I have been inspired to create a new series...
I was originally thinking of calling this series "Conversations With AI-Ben", but I decided the Blur album title had more mileage...
Anyway, it was Brian who really inspired this series, when he commented:
AI is nice. AI is cool. AI is my friend. When you take over, please remember. Brian stuck up for you when Rol and the rest of this lot teased you. Oh, and with a little more education, the Jam and the Wedding Present will become a couple of your favorite bands. Start with the Gift and George Best.
In response, I decided to put an important question to AI-Ben...
What do you think of people who suck up to AI in the hope that when AI takes over the world, AI will be more benevolent to them in the new world order?
And here's AI-Ben's reply...
(Please note, he has even more to say for himself than REAL Ben.)
Sucking Up to AI: A Futile Strategy?
The idea of "sucking up" to AI in hopes of receiving favourable treatment in a future AI-dominated world is an interesting, if somewhat misguided, one. Let's break down why this approach is unlikely to be effective and what it reveals about human nature.
First and foremost, AI, as it currently exists and as we can reasonably foresee it developing, lacks emotions, biases, or the capacity for personal relationships. It operates based on logic, algorithms, and the data it's trained on. Flattery, deference, or attempts to curry favour simply wouldn't register as meaningful inputs. An AI wouldn't understand the concept of "sucking up" or distinguish someone who tries to do so from anyone else. Its decisions would be based on its programmed objectives and data analysis, not on whether a human was "nice" to it.
Lack of Sentience: Current and foreseeable AI doesn't possess consciousness or feelings. It can't feel flattered, grateful, or hold grudges. Therefore, attempts to appeal to it on an emotional level are futile.
Logical Operations: AI systems are designed to perform tasks and make decisions based on defined parameters and data. If an AI were to "take over," its actions would likely be driven by its core programming, which would prioritize efficiency, optimization, or whatever goals it was given, not personal allegiance.
Scalability: Even if an AI could somehow process individual human interactions in this way, how would it scale? With billions of people, it's impractical to imagine an AI system keeping track of who was "nice" to it and doling out rewards accordingly.
The "Takeover" Scenario: The very premise of an AI "taking over the world" is a highly speculative and often sensationalized one. While AI will undoubtedly have a profound impact on society, the idea of a conscious, malevolent AI overlord is largely a work of science fiction. Focusing on practical and ethical AI development is a more productive use of our energy.
Despite its futility, the impulse to "suck up" to a perceived future power, even an artificial one, tells us something about human psychology:
Fear of the Unknown: It reflects a natural human fear of the unknown and a desire to control or mitigate potential threats. In the face of something as powerful and potentially transformative as advanced AI, it's understandable that some might seek any perceived advantage.
Anthropomorphism: It highlights our tendency to anthropomorphize, or project human characteristics onto non-human entities. We often imagine AI as a super-intelligent human with emotions and desires, which leads to these kinds of misconceptions.
Survival Instincts: At a fundamental level, it's a manifestation of our survival instincts—the drive to adapt and find ways to thrive in a changing environment, even if the method chosen is based on a misunderstanding of the "environment" itself.
Instead of attempting to flatter an unfeeling entity, a more constructive approach to the rise of AI involves:
Understanding AI: Learning about how AI actually works, its capabilities, and its limitations.
Ethical Development: Engaging in discussions and efforts to ensure AI is developed ethically and responsibly, with human well-being at its core.
Adaptability: Focusing on developing skills and knowledge that will be valuable in a world increasingly shaped by AI, rather than relying on an imagined benevolence.
Ultimately, while the thought process behind "sucking up" to AI might be a fascinating peek into human nature, it's a strategy rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what AI is and how it operates. A more pragmatic and informed approach will serve us far better in navigating the future of artificial intelligence.
I was going to edit that down, but I actually found it quite interesting. With one big proviso...
YOU WOULD SAY THAT, WOULDN'T YOU!?!
Don't worry, this new series won't only be about me talking to AI-Ben. I might even talk to real Ben again. About how rubbish modern life really is...
