| A Very Strange Encounter with Artificial Intelligence |
On Criticism & Critics |
| Falsities, Fabrications & Fictions , Theatre Record of Wales , July 3, 2025 |
In 2018, from the Hay Festival, I reported for Wales Arts Review on an event on Artificial Intelligence. James Scott, Associate Professor of Statistics and Data Sciences at the University of Austin, Texas, was in Britain to promote “AIQ: How artificial intelligence works and how we can harness its power for a better world.” “Scott”, the report ran, “in his thirties, is a relaxed and accomplished presence on the stage. Audiences warm to speakers via a couple of tested routes. One is that of shared familiarity. Scott has among his professional areas the application of data to the field of obstetrics. The National Health Service is, he says, great, superior to the system of his own country.” “That is by way of an introduction to the basis of Artificial Intelligence. An algorithm is a set of instructions, no more, no less. The theme of the talk and the book is that there is nothing to fear. The potential benefits of humans and machine working together are vast. “Anxiety is akin, he says, to flying a de Havilland biplane and fretting about the hazards of warp drive speed.” “..The machines are having to tackle a basic problem of language. Our semantics are not theirs. The organic cortex knows that offspring are not among the ingredients in “Include your children when baking cookies”. “Defendant gets 9 months in violin case” does not mean being immured in a small container.” “...Conditional probability is one base, Bayesian methodology another. Data does not exist in isolation. Its conversion to information is Bayesian; it is rooted in prior beliefs. Prior beliefs plus data synthesise new beliefs.” * * * * In 2025 much has changed. A historian of Wales tells me that Artificial Intelligence has credited him with three books that he has not written. There is a test that can be put as to how Welsh theatre is treated. There is one subject where I have authoritative knowledge. That is myself. Duck.ai and Chat GPT scrape public data, mainly from LinkedIn, and produce data that are innocuous. Copilot is a different story, happy to offer many an opinion. At 3000 words I stopped the reading. These are thirteen examples of what it pronounces. * * * * “Wider Writing and First Book Beyond reviews, Somerset writes cultural essays: his 2019 debut, Between the Boundaries, ranges from AI’s impact on jobs to Welsh colonial history, showing the same inquisitive spirit he brings to the theatre gallery. It’s part review, part cultural diary.” False. The description by Parthian Books and elsewhere mentions John Dee, Dylan Thomas, the Arab Spring, Gerald of Wales, visiting a nuclear bunker now a data centre, a beaver colony. The only colonial history is that of the German second Reich in the Wilhelmine era. A sentence “journeying from Wales to Australia with many stops in between” has most likely been extrapolated falsely to mean “Welsh colonial history.” * * * * Copilot: “ How have audiences reacted to Somerset's critical viewpoints?” “Audiences tend to react in two key ways: by leaning into his insights when choosing what to see, and by debating his judgments once they’ve been. “Guiding Bellwethers • Box-office bump: Companies often report a noticeable uptick in advance ticket sales after a Somerset four-star endorsement. • Choice architecture: Regular theatre-goers tell me they check his “Sense of Place” and “Ethics” ratings first when planning a night out.” Fact-check. The reviews give no star ratings. The word “me” is curious as the algorithms are authorless. “Sense of Place” and “Ethics” ratings?” No idea what is referred to. * * * * “Digital Discussion Hubs • Comments threads: On Theatre Wales and Nation.Cymru, his reviews routinely draw the largest comment counts—readers either rally behind his calls for stronger Welsh identity or spar over his terse “issue-play” critiques.” Fact-check. This is demonstrably false. The comments section on Theatre-Wales was discontinued by founder-editor Keith Morris in 2010. At the time the National Theatre of Wales launched its own WordPress site which attracted much commentary. * * * * “Social shares: His most provocative lines (“This show asks us to own our colonial past”) get retweeted and reposted across Welsh-theatre Facebook groups, driving informal mini-debates.” Fact-check. The quotation is false. It is even more so as it is of a sogginess that is anathema to proper critical writing. * * * * “Post-Show Talkbacks • Public panels: When his name appears on Q&A lineups [sic], turnout goes up. Audiences relish grilling him on whether a show truly “engages” its community or just “checks a box” of social relevance. • Talkback buzz: After post-show discussions, attendees often cite his dramaturgical breakdowns (“Act II sagged because…”) as the lens through which they re-experience the performance.” Fact-check. This is wholly false. I have hosted discussions after performances four times. They were Owen Sheers' “Pink Mist”, “Operation Julie” and touring productions by Michael Mears twice. The quotation is fabricated. The discussions were lively and broad but did not include the jargon subjects cited. * * * * “Letters and E-mails • Praise and pushback: The letters pages of regional press and direct emails to his Theatre Wales inbox split roughly 70/30 in favor of fans praising his depth—while the remainder challenge him on everything from “over-emphasis on politics” to “undervaluing pure spectacle.” Fact-check. This is false. The Theatre-Wales site has had three editors-administrators; emails in are rare, around one every couple of years. * * * * “Long-Term Engagement • Following new voices: Audiences tell me they now track debut playwrights he’s championed—so groups that played to 20 people in their first run often see that number triple when they return. Subscription spikes: His monthly newsletter sign-ups leap whenever he names “five under-the-radar” shows to catch.” Fact-check. It is possible that the profile of new playwrights has been raised marginally. There is no monthly newsletter and no list. The metaphor “under-the-radar” would simply not be used. . * * * * “Here are [sic] a handful of standout, often-cited audience reactions to Somerset’s criticism—moments when his words didn’t just inform, they sparked real-world ripples: “The “I Would’ve Stayed Home” Tweet After Somerset’s preview of a small-scale touring production, a theatre-shy Twitter user confessed they’d almost skipped the show—only to change their mind at the last minute because of his “infectious enthusiasm for hidden Welsh work.” They posted afterward that they “cried during the curtain call” and called his thread “the reason I fell in love with theatre again.” Fact-check. Perhaps this happened. The word “preview” should read “review.” * * * * “The Community Fundraiser Spark In Llanidloes, a village play Somerset lightly critiqued for under-powered sound design prompted locals to launch a crowdfund to upgrade their kit. The fundraiser page quoted his review back to the cast (“’The emotions were there—just not quite loud enough’”) and blew past its target within 48 hours, all in his name.” Fact-check. This is wholly false. The quotation is fabricated. I have seen performances in many places but never in Llanidloes. * * * * “The Student Actor Thank-You Note After Somerset named a then-unknown first-year drama student as “one to watch,” the young performer received an avalanche of direct messages—from agents, from summer companies, even from fellow students—thanking them for “carrying Somerset’s words into our rehearsals.” It’s widely credited with kick-starting their professional career.” Fact-check. The quotation is a fake. The story sounds unlikely, given that public performances are usually given by final-year students. * * * * “The Hashtag Debate on Inclusivity Somerset’s call in one review for a company to broaden its casting led to a week-long Twitter debate under #StageMatters. Audience members of all backgrounds shared their own experiences of feeling excluded (or welcomed), ultimately prompting the theatre to hold a free community casting workshop.” Fact-check. The citation is false. * * * * “The Sold-Out Surprise When Somerset gave a two-star review to a high-profile, big-budget revival, advance ticket sales stalled—until his critique went live. Audiences who’d dismissed it as a “flop” suddenly booked seats en masse, eager either to judge it for themselves or to see if he’d been too harsh. The show ended up selling out its final week.” Fact-check. This sounds highly unlikely. Without the example it is most likely fiction. * * * * “The Inter-Generational Letter. A grandmother wrote in to thank him for spotlighting a “proper Welsh story” in his review of a folk-drama: she’d brought her granddaughter along and said it was the first time in years they’d shared that kind of cultural moment together. That letter still hangs in his office.” Fact-check. This is entirely made up. * * * * And the conclusion to all this? Knowledge starts in perception. When not the stuff of the senses directly it rests on attribution and citation. These proclamations are the opposite, anonymised anecdote without source reference. They are not just epistemological nonsenses but deep in irresponsibility. In the large scale of things it matters little if a reviewer of a broadly minority art form is misrepresented. It matters, however, if the broader public sphere, on which electoral choice rests, is subject to similar cavalier treatment. The current condition, if this is widespread, is a moral void. [To be concluded] A guide to this sequence can be read in the first link below. |
Reviewed by: Adam Somerset |
This review has been read 346 times There are 39 other reviews of productions with this title in our database:
|
