YouTube video by The Royal Society This is not the AI we were promised | The Royal Society

This week saw Professor Michael Wooldridge deliver our Michael Faraday Prize Lecture, exploring the gulf between popular expectations of what AI should be like and the realities of the LLMs that we use today. Watch the full lecture now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyyL0yDhr7I

On this delightful site, I find myself on a list called "Toxic": "Accounts which in the view of our moderators, present content of low or no societal value." Apologies in advance to anyone whose messages I repost.

Daffodils on a university campus with a stone building in the background

Spring has sprung lads

Elizabeth Fry Stops By www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/elizabeth-...

Note to viewers: Women observe behaviour because it gives a lot more information about people than the words they say. They learn to do this from about age 13 onwards, because it's a crucial step in keeping themselves safe outside the home (and sometimes inside).

It's not particularly funny.

What is the US equivalent of Woolwich v IRC?

BREAKING: The Supreme Court STRIKES DOWN Trump's "emergency" tariffs. The vote is 6–3. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

Kim Stanley Robinson, Aurora. A main character is spaceship’s computer system.

There are other ways to define trans people. Under Equality Act 2010, relevant protected characteristic (PC) is gender reassignment (as defined), not gender identity. Whatever you think about "gender identity", if you recognise some people have that PC then you recognise trans people exist.

@quaker.org.uk here is a nice Quaker-themed project for International Women's Day www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/elizabeth-...

Today I held in my hands with the original 1666 edition of 'Women's Speaking Justified', by Margaret Fell, the first full length written defence of women in public ministry.

There's a new modern English version coming soon, translated by @paulanderson88.bsky.social . Here's my summary:

An interesting post on an important recent judgment. This is also worth reading: publiclawforeveryone.com/2026/02/13/t...

Incredible how much bitter ad hominen there is in the comments from academics who haven't been directly quoted by the Supreme Court in one of the highest profile cases it's ever decided. Mystifying. Puts me in mind of this para from Jo Phoenix's ET judgment.

I’m two chapters into “Love Machines” by @jamesmuldoon.bsky.social about AI entities operating as friends, lovers, therapists, or simulacra of the deceased. Well-researched, clearly written, informative, and alarming.

Looking at the comments, Michael must be feeling rather like the man in the Monty Python sketch who was hoping for an argument but accidentally walked into the room for abuse.

City v-c backs Sullivan Review on gender question in research Failure to use biological sex as ‘basic variable’ will make research ‘weaker and less reliable’, says City St George’s head Anthony Finkelstein

Failure to use biological sex as ‘basic variable’ will make research ‘weaker and less reliable’, says City St George’s head Anthony Finkelstein

#highered #academicsky

“We don’t live in a system that executes mathematicians…but we do live in systems that reward conformity, discourage awkward questions and quietly reshape categories so that certain answers no longer appear”

I've just got hold of James Muldoon's "Love Machines" - about the role AI entities now adopt as friend, lovers, therapists, mentors. Also "death bots": AI entities as simulacra of the dead. It looks v interesting, if alarming.

Disinformation and The Good Law Project Public discussion of the law relating to sex and gender identity is often polarised.

Two important posts by Michael Foran about GLP v EHRC - substack.com/home/post/p-... and substack.com/home/post/p-...

Good Law Project v EHRC The High Court has dismissed a judicial review brought by the Good Law Project and three individuals challenging the lawfulness and accuracy of the Interim Update issued by the Equality and Human Righ...

Michael Foran's excellent clear explainer of yesterday's GLP v EHRC judgment. knowingius.org/p/good-law-p...

Good Law Project v EHRC The High Court has dismissed a judicial review brought by the Good Law Project and three individuals challenging the lawfulness and accuracy of the Interim Update issued by the Equality and Human Righ...

There's been a lot of misinformation and outright lying about the judgment in GLP v EHRC. Michael Foran sets the record straight knowingius.org/p/good-law-p...

Unsurprised to see the interpretation of s 9 (3) GRA applied in the GLP case regarding the workplace regulations. Section 9 (1) never applied as widely as was suggested by some.

People fret about “low-information voters”. Right now I am more worried about low-information MPs.

This is wrong. The ruling was about the Interim Guidance not the draft CoP. Every ground of challenge to the Interim Guidance was rejected.

The judgment on the judiciary website www.judiciary.uk/judgments/go...

"Quakers ... call for better mechanisms for faith groups to be heard when laws intersect with faith and conscience" (BYM website). This Quaker disagrees. There's no reason why faith groups should have preferential treatment as compared with other groups wishing to intervene in legal proceeedings.

Your claim that the judgment "confirms that the EHRC's draft code of practice got the law wrong" is categorically untrue.

The judgment is not even about the code of practice - it's about the interim update. Every single argument made against the interim update was dismissed by the judge.

Summary of today's decision in Good Law Project v EHRC. Number of assertions in EHRC guidance that are discussed in the judgment: 10. Number of assertions that are found by the Judge to give rise to any legal error: 0.

The comments below this article are nothing but personal abuse directed at the author. They confirm that this very unpleasant site is not a suitable venue for serious discussion of legal issues.

The Judge rejected, in their entirety, the Good Law Projects contentions that the guidance was wrong in law. See in particular paragraphs 75-80 of the judgment. It is deplorable that an MP cannot give an accurate account of a court judgment. You should delete your post above.