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

There's a constant worry about AI being overused, particularly tools like ChatGPT being used to create "AI slop." And now it seems that British MPs may be increasingly guilty of this.

An investigation of the parliamentary records by Pimlico Journal (via The Telegraph) shows a rise in the use of common AI phrasing by MPs in the speeches they're delivering in Parliament.

It's not universal, it seems, at least, with one current Conservative MP calling out the practice for making the House of Commons "absurd."

One of the phrases that is triggering the most attention towards AI use seems to be "I rise to speak." This was first used in the House of Commons almost 200 years ago, but has spiked significantly in recent times. It has been recorded 635 times this year so far, compared to 231 in 2024, significantly increased along the same timeline as the rise of AI tools.

Sounds pretty normal, though, right? The Conservative MP in question that has raised opposition to the practice pointed out a key tell; I rise to speak is an "Americanism" that was not, at one time, particularly common in the House of Commons.

Per The Telegraph, Tom Tugendhat, Conservative MP for Tonbridge, said in the House of Commons this week:

“All we hear from government members in ChatGPT-generated press releases is ‘I rise to speak’, ‘I rise to speak’, ‘I rise to speak’. ChatGPT knows you are there. That is an Americanism that we do not use. Still, they should keep using it, because it makes it clear that this place has become absurd.”

He also followed up on social media the following day with further criticism of colleagues using AI in this manner.

Regardless of political leanings, I have to agree with the sentiment being expressed here. MPs are elected representatives, and their job is (supposed to be) representing the people, both those who voted for and against them.

It doesn't present a particularly good image of those we choose to represent us if they're standing up, speaking on our behalf, but the words aren't even their words.

It should be pointed out that while the investigation is thorough, and there are clear signs of AI, those named in the report hadn't commented.

While there could be grounds to use AI in some of the tasks involved in being an MP, admin work, for example, there really is no excuse for a politician to be as lazy, nay, disrespectful, as to stand up in the chamber in the House of Commons and present words from ChatGPT as their own.

AI doesn't represent the people that those in these positions are supposed to represent. I think we can all agree on that.