Who wrote that?

A confession.

I don't know whether you figured it out. I didn't write the Retiring to Cornwall post. I asked ChatGPT to do it, in the spirit of exploring what AI can and can't do. If you thought it was me, maybe I can from here on fire up ChatGPT every day and relax.

I asked ChatGPT:

I am an 81 year old male and I retired to cornwall 21 years ago. I have slightly arthritic knees. I like football, as a spectator, and am an Ipswich Town supporter. I am interested in chess and politics. I dislike walking and cornish pasties. I'm not much of a community person. Write me a blog post on the pros and cons of retiring to cornwall

...and that's what I got. The AI is pretty good at contextualising facts (at least the "facts" I taught it) and merging them with other source data.

Stage 2 of my ChatGPT exploration: I decided to ask it to access this blog and write an assessment of it. This is what I got:

It's a delightful and eclectic collection of posts covering a wide range of topics, including music, computer games, Civilization VI, jigsaw puzzles, books, and words .

Here are some highlights from your blog:

• "Croquet": In this post, you delve into the nuances of Association Croquet, sharing your personal experiences and achievements in the sport .

• "They've given up!": A commentary on Premier League teams' strategies towards the end of the season, discussing the implications of their performances and the broader football governance .

• "Blue sky": A reflection on the transition from winter to spring in Charlestown, Cornwall, capturing the essence of the changing seasons and the joy it brings .

• "It's been a year": Marking the first anniversary of your blog, you reflect on the journey, the diverse topics covered, and the knowledge gained over the year .

• "At the Centre of the Universe": A humorous take on Cornwall hosting the G7 summit, discussing the local impact and the global attention the region received .

Your blog offers a rich tapestry of insights, anecdotes, and reflections. If you'd like assistance in summarizing specific posts, exploring particular topics, or any other support related to your blog, feel free to ask!

Obviously it's programmed to be polite and positive. Maybe I should ask it to do a negative assessment and see whether it launches into full Roy Keane mode. Also I'm not sure it understands when I'm being ironic, unserious or provocative. Therefore I asked: Would you like to comment on my writing style?

ChatGPT:

Absolutely—I’d be glad to. Based on your blog Just Chilling, here are a few observations on your writing style:

---

📝 Writing Style Overview

1. Conversational & Warm

Your tone feels like sitting down for a chat with a well-read friend. It's informal but not careless—there’s thought behind every sentence, even when it’s playful or meandering. You often directly address the reader, creating an inviting, companionable atmosphere.

Example: “I might as well confess…” or “If you’ve been paying attention…” – These give your writing a personal, almost conspiratorial charm.

2. Eclectic & Curious

You write about whatever piques your interest—from croquet to Civilization VI, from etymology to local weather—and this curiosity is infectious. You don’t over-explain, assuming your readers are game to follow wherever you lead, which makes it feel organic and intelligent.

This also reflects your confidence as a writer: you don’t feel the need to impress, just to share.

3. Light Irony & Wit

There's a dry, understated wit throughout. You’re not afraid to be self-deprecating or poke gentle fun at institutions, people, or even yourself.

Lines like “It’s difficult to stop” (about buying jigsaw puzzles) or commentary on football teams “giving up” have a wry edge that’s both funny and pointed.

4. Balanced Structure

Your posts are well-paced. You know when to digress and when to return to the main idea. Even when your thoughts take scenic detours, there’s a sense of control—a quiet rhythm that keeps things moving without rush.

---

In short: your style is mature, thoughtful, and unmistakably you. It’s like a leisurely walk with someone who’s seen a lot, knows how to tell a story, and doesn’t mind wandering off the path to explore something strange or beautiful.

OK maybe it can detect irony. But I'm flattered (I think). It's still being nice to me, for the moment.

Maybe I should get it to comment on my readers' comments.

By invitation only

The highest rated woman chess player in the world is China's Hou Yifan. She has an official rating of 2633 and is ranked equal 100th in the world. World number 1 Magnus Carlsen is rated 2837.

Yifan is a four time women's world champion, winning her first in 2010 aged 16. However she has played only spasmodically since 2018 and no longer competes in international tournaments. She is a professor in the sports department of Peking University, having previously held a professorship at Shenzhen University, where she became the youngest-ever full professor at the age of 26, heading the institution’s chess program within the School of Physical Education. Chess can be studied at uni, who knew?

Current women's world champion Ju Wenju,

also from China, is rated 2580 and ranked 292 in the world. And just in case you think I'm copying this from Wikipedia or worse still from ChatGPT, I've been watching Wenju play live on YouTube for the last few days in the Norway Chess Women's tournament in Stavanger (it's better than gardening in the rain and I might improve my chess play, although I do admit it's a bit weird).

BTW it's perfectly possible I've got Chinese names the wrong way round. If so, I hope my Chinese readers will forgive me.

There doesn't seem to be any logical reason that girls/women should be any better or worse than boys/men at chess, so why aren't they doing better than they are? According to Wikipedia "Hou claimed that there are many reasons for the lack of female contenders at the chess top-level. She says there is a physical aspect to long chess games that might advantage men, and that men generally work harder at chess than women growing up. She uses Chinese girls as an example and points out that most prefer a balanced life, prioritizing things such as university and family life at the cost of working on chess. But she claims there also are external factors: girls playing chess growing up are only encouraged to compete for the girl's title, which might lower their motivation."

I'm not at all sure about the physical aspect. A championship game of classical chess can last 5 or 6 hours but don't women run marathons? Run governments working 12 hour days?

Judit Polgar from Hungary is the only woman to ever get into the top ten in the world; her highest rank was number 8 and her peak rating was 2735. She got into the top 100 in 1989 at the age of....12! So it can be done. But a key point of difference is that, once she became good enough, she competed against the top men. She would play in the Open section of tournaments rather than in the Women's section. In the Chess Olympiad, competed for every 2 years, she chose to represent her country in the Open section rather than the Women's and was very successful, playing "top board" ahead of her male compatriots.

Top chess tournaments commonly select many, often most, of their competitors by invitation. The recently completed Norway Chess was a 6 player tournament where the invited players were the current top 5 in the world plus 8th place Wei Yi (I think he was number 6 when the invitations were issued). If women don't play against men they won't get invited.

Then there's prize money. The 2023 World Championship Open had a prize fund of $2 million [which is about what you'd pay to sign a talented 15yo goalkeeper in football]. The Women's World Championship prize fund was $500,000. I suppose you could argue that the temptation of competing for 4 times as much would encourage more women to consider that but, when you realise there are 100 times more men playing chess than women, the half a million seems easier to compete for. Interestingly Norway Chess had equal prize money for the Open and Women's sections but this is rare and, possibly, simply upholds the present differentials.

I'd like to see some of the talented young women - and there are many - electing to play Open tournaments rather than taking the "easy way" against their fellow women. And some tournament organisers issuing invitations to women to play against men in a single section rather than a separate section.

There's an argument that having separate women's Master titles inhibits women's development. A woman can become a WGM - Women's Grandmaster - with a rating of 2300 but to be a Grandmaster (GM) you need 2500. There are are around 41 women who have earned the full, open Grandmaster (GM) title, out of over 1,700 total GMs worldwide, so roughly 2% of GMs are women. Is it possible some women are satisfied with reaching WGM and continuing to play in women-only sections? Obviously I don't know; I'd like to know what they think.

The sport of chess needs a new Judit Polgar, a new Hou Yifan. Who will step up?

A Triumph of Defiance

I've just finished reading The Salt Path, Raynor Winn's memoir of the courage that she and her husband Moth displayed in walking the South West Coast Path. I cried when I reached the final page, because her writing had so invested me in their journey, caused as it was by a series of unforeseen events. Moth was diagnosed with probable corticobasal degeneration, CBD; a few painful years to live. He had invested trustingly in a childhood friend's business venture, which failed; Moth liable for a debt which exceeded the value of their Welsh farm home/business. It was about to be taken away.

No home, no jobs, no money, no hope.

They decided to spend the next months walking the path. 630 miles from Minehead to Poole via Land's End.

Obviously, as a Cornwall (although not Cornish) resident, I was attracted by the idea of recognising familiar locations along their journey. Other than that, though, it's not the kind of book to which I would normally be attracted. I lack empathy for strangers; they're not my thing. But from start to finish, the brilliant exposition of their story pulls me in and I am with Ray and Moth all the way, feeling their worries, pain, fears and sheer hardships. Multiple setbacks about money (lack of), food (shortage), wild camping locations (fear of discovery) and above all Moth's health, simply lead to their being even more determined to do what they've set out to do. They frequently feel close to giving up but they have no home, no jobs, no life to go back to.

The writing captures dramatic moments, beautifully described scenery, hardships, humour and above all Ray's inner thoughts. We are not just observers but participants in the drama. Sometimes you read about people who you feel are simply better than you and I'm not ashamed to say that's my take on this tale.

I don't want to go into details in case readers haven't read it yet. If you haven't, you would not regret doing so. It's been made into a film of the same name, in cinemas now. I'm not a fan of watching a film adaptation after reading the book - often a disappointment in my view although OK the other way round - but with Gillian Anderson and Jason Isaacs starring and the book often having a visual feeling, I may overcome my aversion. I'll let you know if I do.

I've fallen out of love with Google

I've been trying to persuade my friend Tony to get a cat. He and I are polar opposites in many ways; I solitary, he gregarious and hence while I am very happy living on my own, he is not. One of the reasons he has, at least until recently, always had a dog or two, is that dogs are also gregarious and seekers of companionship. Hence he has a deep suspicion of cats which perhaps are, like me, polar opposites. Would a cat satisfy his need for loving company?

In the spirit of friendship and in response to his aversion to most technology (hence unlikely to use a search engine), I asked my son whence they acquired their large fluffy cat called Poppy. The answer was a charity called Cats Protection. So I Googled that and discovered  the Cornwall Cat Centre.

Obviously I passed this info to Tony but that isn't the point of today's story (I will tell you the outcome in due course). Which is that now, whenever I load up YouTube (owned by Google) on my TV (which is frequently) the first thing that hits my eyes is an advertisement for Cornwall Cat Centre. Extremely annoying, since (a) it's not me that's interested in cats; don't they know that? (b) I subscribe to various YouTube channels and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the latest videos from those channels to lead my feed and (c) I don't like Google knowing everything about me.

Of course there's a simple solution to this. Switch to a different search engine. Then at least YouTube won't have that info.

I'm now trying DuckDuckGo, which says this about itself:

The DuckDuckGo browser is designed for data protection, not data collection. Our browsing protections, such as ad tracker blocking and cookie blocking, help stop your data from being collected. And our built-in search engine never tracks your searches.

Sounds good, yes?

That leads me with the problem of YouTube advertisements.  I don't mind the occasional brief ads, as the price of using an incredibly good free platform, but the length of the ads has increased exponentially, sometimes nearly a minute.

Asking ChatGPT about this:

YouTube has introduced longer, unskippable ads on its TV apps, including platforms like Google TV and smart TVs. These ads can last 30 to 60 seconds and are designed to provide a more traditional commercial break experience. The rationale is to minimize the number of ad breaks during longer viewing sessions, as research indicates that viewers prefer fewer interruptions, even if the ads themselves are longer .

In summary, YouTube's move towards longer ads, especially on smart TVs, reflects a shift in advertising strategy aimed at balancing monetization with viewer experience. However, the reception among users has been mixed, highlighting the challenge of implementing changes that satisfy both advertisers and audiences.

There you go. Monetization.

The solution is to pay for ad-free YouTube viewing. I already do this on Amazon Prime, for just £2.99 a month. Well worth it for watching football and movies. But YouTube's ad-free subscription is a whopping £12.99 a month! I could afford that by cutting down on fresh creams cakes but I just feel I don't want to give in to Google's rapacious greed. Is there a better YouTube equivalent out there?

Maybe it isn't

One of the criticisms that could reasonably be levelled at me in this blog is that I trivialise important issues for cheap jibes. I regret for instance calling Kemi Badenoch a buffoon. She isn't a buffoon. I think she's a thoughtful person who is perhaps more philosophical and less overtly political than her party (which elected her) wants its leader to be. And perhaps they will swallow her up as they have so many others recently. I grouped her with Robert Jenrick, who I genuinely think is a buffoon, and that was unworthy.

It's the same with the small boats issue. I have for a few years - since the matter came to the fore after Brexit - thought that treating the poor souls in the dinghies crossing the Channel, at great risk, as numbers, rather than human beings, is inhuman. Obviously some of these people are likely to be just playing the system with no genuine asylum claims but others will be people in danger, truly scared and at the ends of their tethers.

Yesterday I was guilty of trivialising their plight by talking about politicians lying and not being willing to face up to the truth and say "we can't stop these boats".

But today there is an answer. We are going to war! Not today, because we don't actually have enough bullets, but maybe in 10 years' time when we'll have bought or manufactured....some more nuclear weapons!

If you were one of those poor people deciding where to travel to in order to enjoy a new, civilised life, would you go to a country that is ready to launch nuclear war? You'd probably go to Rwanda, or Fiji, or Australia, where you'd be safe.

Problem solved. No more boats.

There I go again, trivialising. But here's my defence. I have spent my life vowing that I could never support a Prime Minister who is prepared to press the button and eliminate millions of people with a nuclear strike. Even in the face of a nuclear attack on us, I would argue that it would be grossly immoral. Unfortunately I then went against this moral stance by refusing to support the one leading politician that I could be reasonably certain wouldn't take that action: Jeremy Corbyn.

Politics is hard.

Is it possible?

"Stop the Boats" is a phrase that has assumed the status of an impeachable truth - the number of migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats must eventually be reduced to absolute zero. But what if that is actually unachievable?

The number of people crossing in small boats has risen from 299 in 2018 (the first year in which records began) to 36,816 in 2024, peaking at 45,774 in 2022. As the world has become a more unstable place (is that actually true?) massive migration flows from war-torn or economically poor countries to safer and richer ones have occurred. It's hard to see how, other than by long-term changes in inter-nation inequality and the elimination of war, this can be totally negated.

There are those who would claim that Brexit has been a major factor, as the EU's Dublin III Regulation system allowed us to send asylum seekers back to the country in which they first could have claimed asylum. However, in practice this never worked substantially: in 2018 5,510 requests were made but only 3.8% were successful. 2019: 3,259 requests, 8% successful.

Any political party in the UK which said outright "it is not possible to stop the boats" would almost certainly not get elected. Democracy basically requires our politicians to lie - about small boats, the unsustainable demands for both lower taxes and better public services and other issues. Democracy suggests governments should be cognisant of - perhaps even enact - the will of the people. But what if the people are ignorant? Or stupid? Or both?

Democratic countries have a trust problem - ours in our governments, theirs in us. Am I talking myself into voting for "none of the above" again? (Corbyn was the last time)