One of the increasingly troubling trends in modern life is the use of AI as a tool to gather and utilise information. Now, this might merely be the concern of a late middle-aged bureaucrat whose caution is inevitable. On the other hand, it may reflect an entirely reasonable fear that people are too trusting of the information presented to them by unaccountable algorithms. But what if those algorithms are being used to surreptitiously influence what we think and how we perceive the world around us?

We’ve already seen X turn from an entertaining, and occasionally useful, social media platform into a hot mess as Elon Musk openly manipulates its working algorithm to promote those views he supports and punish those who puncture his fragile ego. And now the legal system is facing a challenge from plaintiffs using AI-generated false case precedents to support their arguments in court.

The kneejerk solution is to legislate to address these concerns but the pace of technological change and jurisdictional challenges make any attempts to do so complex and probably futile. Parliamentarians lack the tools, and often the skills, to design a set of principles which might be effective.

I am, clearly, not the only person wondering about this. Nick Clegg has been in the news this week, having made a speech suggesting that the Liberal Democrats should be willing to go into a coalition in future (good luck with that campaign, Nick!). He’s got a book out in the Autumn, “How to Save the Internet”, which should be intriguing.

Now, I’ve always tended to view Nick as being the political equivalent of a Boy Scout, enthusiastic but occasionally naive in terms of how his actions are perceived by outsiders. That was an issue in the Coalition years, and his decision to take the Zuckerberg dollars was perhaps not observed with much sympathy, regardless of his claim to be hoping to make the social media world better. Those more cynical than I assumed that it was the money that was the sole factor, whilst even those who were more sympathetic didn’t fancy his chances very highly.

And my fear is that the book might take a more rose-tinted view of the future of the Internet whereas, whilst I acknowledge the many benefits that it has brought, I worry about the price that many members of our society pay for it in terms of the contagion of prejudice, hatred and propaganda against them.

And now for something completely different. Regular readers will know that, in my spare time, I chair a small Parish Council in Suffolk’s Gipping Valley. However, in quintessential Liberal Democrat style, I have rather accidentally risen to the August height of Chair of the Smaller Councils Committee of the National Association of Local Councils (NALC).

In that role, I seek to make NALC better at serving the needs of small town and village communities in the face of increasing challenges – lack of funding, burdens of Government inspired bureaucracy, staffing and recruitment difficulties. And, knowing that there are many Liberal Democrat Town and Parish Councillors out there, I’d welcome your thoughts “below the line” in terms of how NALC can represent you. Remember, NALC isn’t “party political” in the same way that the Local Government Association is set up to be, so do bear that in mind, but I’d love to hear from you nonetheless…

* Mark Valladares is the Monday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. Unlike Bielefeld, he probably exists…