Readers’ letters: Asking AI about state of Scotland isn't the best idea

Opposing a motion to the Scottish Parliament “Demanding a Better Deal for Taxpayers in Scotland”, Green MSP Lorna Slater presented the case that, once the benefits of various policies such as “free” prescriptions, bus travel, tuition fees and social care was taken into account and despite higher income tax rates, people in Scotland are generally better off than people in England.

To prove her point, she had put her thesis into an AI chatbot which confirmed her view. If the output from AI was capable of unequivocally defining what is true, it would strengthen her argument; however, it does not have that capability.

Troubled by two recent incidences where ChatGPT had not just given me wrong information but made up “facts” (a phenomenon known as “hallucination”), I challenged ChatGPT as to why it does that. Its response was enlightening and included the following: “It was trained to sound helpful – not to know the truth. So, when you ask a question, it tries to give you the kind of answer it thinks you want – even if it has to guess.”

Scottish Greens co-leader Lorna Slater has been experimenting with artificial intelligence (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

I find it amusing that Lorna Slater, a politician, relied upon AI to justify her position. After all, the text quoted above would also be a reasonable description of most politicians.

George Rennie, Inverness

No rights

This week legislation was changed in the House of Commons to stop women being prosecuted for having a late-term abortion. It was passed by a majority of 242 MPs, who were heard cheering as the result was announced.

At the moment abortion is legal up to 24 weeks, which in itself is utterly ludicrous. I have personally known babies that have been born at 24 weeks and have grown to lead healthy adult lives. The NHS is wonderful when it comes to looking after premature babies, moving heaven and earth to save their precious lives. Now, the law is to decriminalise abortion up to the day before birth at nine months! This is barbaric, it is inhuman and violates the human rights of the unborn healthy child.

The majority of supporting MPs were Labour and have said the point of the law change is to remove the threat of investigation on the mother of the child. What about the rights of the viable child that has in effect being killed against its will? What about the many parents who have suffered multiple miscarriages and those who can't have biological children, how does this barbaric decision affect their mental health?

I agree with abortion in the very early stages – under 20 weeks – of pregnancy, if the health of the mother is at critical risk or the child was to be born with profound, life-limiting disabilities or in the case of a pregnancy resulting from rape. That choice must always be permitted and is the decision of the mother.

However, this legislation change is wrong on every level, it is depraved and disgusting, these supporting MPs should really be questioning their moral judgment and ultimately be removed from Parliament as they are not supporting their constituents in the manner they should be.

Conrad Ritchie, Fraserburgh, Aberdeenshire

Grab talent

Edinburgh University Principal Professor Sir Peter Mathieson noted that unfortunately the University was to go into the red next year after years of profit. His answer was to stop recruitment. Then President Donald Trump declared war on US universities. A number of leading staff are seriously disaffected. In other countries a race to recruit some of these people has begun. What should particularly interest us is those in the Sciences. They present a unique opportunity to recruit. But I am told Edinburgh's ban still applies.

As a graduate I have always been proud to be an alumnus of one of the great institutions in the world. This is as a result of high-class recruitment.

How can we abandon this opportunity? In capital terms Edinburgh is the third most wealthy university in the UK. In revenue terms, scientific research is supported by special Government grants. In a similar way I have been a benefactor and others like me must wonder if, after the David Hume fiasco, there is any point in responding to appeals?

How is Mathieson enhancing the reputation of his charge? Does the University Court have a voice in this matter?

Hugh Mackay, Edinburgh

Cap the greed

Alex Williamson of Scottish Rugby insists that Murrayfield stadium needs to put on ever more concerts and matches. He's unhappy with the cap of 12 concerts a year, but for the local residents, this is more than enough. An influx of over 50,000 people is horrendous each time, with parking and traffic flow restrictions causing mayhem. Mr Williamson suggests he has the local residents on board but that's not the case.

We need a smaller cap, not a bigger one. SRU greed needs to be capped!

Brian Bannatyne-Scott, Edinburgh

Wheels off the bus

Allan Sutherland attacks both Labour and the SNP for their perceived joint failure to stop the Alexander Dennis bus group from relocating outwith Scotland (Letters, 19 June). In doing so he assumes it is within the Scottish Government’s remit to place orders for buses using public funds.

Under Scottish Public Finance Manual rules the SG can only provide finance. It cannot become involved in the actual procurement process. This is to avoid any hint of favouring one company over another for political reasons. In this instance it merely put money towards a Net Zero Emissions fund with further contributions from the bus companies which were doing the ordering for their fleets.

Conversely Manchester City Council, as a procuring authority, was free to choose where to place their orders.

You could argue that the Scottish Government could have made a stipulation to buy Scottish a condition of their involvement. But that would have put them in breach of both the UK Internal Market and the World Trade Organisation rules which prohibit discrimination on the grounds of nationality when awarding a publicly funded contract.

In any case, most bus companies in Scotland are privately owned. As such they have a legal duty to their shareholders to procure in a way that benefits them rather than politicians. Lothian Buses is one exception as they are publicly owned. However, when they buy buses they are governed by local authority “best value” rules which means they are obliged to buy from the company which represents best value for the local taxpayer. These rules were introduced in 2003 when there was a Scottish Labour First Minister.

Robert Menzies, Falkirk

Ask the people

Margaret Neighbour’s article “Dozens killed waiting for food trucks in Gaza” (18 June), accompanied by the appalling photograph of crowds of people waiting for food, graphically illustrates the horrific choice Palestinians face – to risk being shot or die of starvation.

According to David J Crawford in his letter "What democracy?” (same day), Keir Starmer is refusing to rule out additional jet fighters being sent out to the Middle East “to protect Israel from Iranian attacks”. Mr Crawford makes an important point. Why is the Prime Minister not using the existing democratic processes to consult Members of Parliament – our elected representatives – about where we should stand in relation to Israel’s actions, both morally and ethically? The violence perpetrated against the people of Israel on 7 October 2023 was unforgiveable. The violence experienced by Jewish people everywhere during the Holocaust was unforgiveable. But subjecting innocent men, women and children in neighbouring countries to the suffering that Israel is currently perpetrating is also unforgiveable. Should the people of Britain not at least have a right, through their elected representatives, to have the subject fully debated in Parliament?

Melanie Lewin, Edinburgh

Blame SNP

If a person finds that his favoured political party, in government, is being rightly criticised for failures in delivery, what is he to do? If he is Stan Grodynski (Letters, 19 June), he complains that the criticism should be levelled at someone else, always the UK Government, even for failures for which his party the SNP, is wholly responsible.

As for UK debt, most of us will remember the banking crisis and the Covid crisis, which caused massive shocks to our finances and caused us to borrow significantly. If Mr Grodynski peeped outside his anti-UK bubble, he would see that several other developed countries have debt that is greater than the UK’s: the US, Japan, Singapore, France, Italy, for example.

As for perpetuating the hoary old myth that Scotland performs better than the rest of the UK in its NHS and education – he trots out the usual “school leavers in positive destinations” mantra, not school leavers with a firm grasp of literacy and numeracy – that is nonsense. And these are areas for which the Scottish administration is entirely responsible.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh

Legally blind

Considering how much income the Scottish Government has generated for the legal profession in Scotland over the years it is high time it reciprocated by ditching its bloody-minded attitude to the profession.

If any MSPs needed Legal Aid I bet things would happen a bit more speedily! Just because some lawyers make a very successful living doesn’t mean they all do!

David Elder, Haddington, East Lothian

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.