I spent half of my weekend in the company of Generation Z, that is people of my children’s generation – of Generation Z. People in Generation Z are born between 1997 and 2012 and , according to those I spoke to, are none too happy to be having to comply to a new set of rules. Here is a comment from Beeban Kidron, who sits in the House of Lords , speaking for my generation as I feel.

“They’re being asked to embrace technology while being told there are no jobs, that the machines are taking over and five people in the world will rule the roost. They’re going, where do I go, what do I do, who am I?”

I speak with my tech team who are in India and Gen Z. Soham is not one of them but speaks in the FT as they do

Soham, 20, an engineering student in Chennai, India, said that use of the technology among his friends is widespread and increasingly acceptable, especially in sending emails.

“Earlier people would hide em dashes [a common feature of AI-generated text]. Nowadays people are more unapologetic. People have accepted AI is the norm.”

Soham feared the impact of AI on India’s vast digital services sector and the legions of tech workers it employs.

“The government really doesn’t understand how AI works. There is no department or leg of government actively ensuring it is on the right track.”

Others complained about AI’s growing intrusion into everyday life. Matthew, 26, a sales representative in Texas, recalled someone telling a group at a birthday party to use a chatbot to write a celebration speech.

“It felt like an unnecessary shortcut that took the soul out of things,”

he said.

“A lot of people use AI for thinking or creativity and seeing [those skills] disappear from people around me is discouraging . . . I think we’ve gotten to the point where it has become more harmful than helpful.”

I worry for freedom of expression in job application which can be screened for spontaneity. The process of application could be one of compliance with the rules of bot screening applications with human interaction being reduced to meeting those who know the rules and how to submit personal feeling to them. Personality does not play much part in such a process.

I was brought up reading English literature and became fluent in literary criticism. I was able to distinguish between writers who offered derivatives of creative literature and taught to respond to creativity as the authentic use of language. Thinking freely about the creative use of language is something that has stayed with me. It is why I now am suspicious of written articles and written speeches.

I know that the most perfect rewording of what I send people for their thoughts may not be their comments but the improvements of a bot and take care not to allow a bot to control the blogs I post here, or the posts I place on social media.

But I suspect that much of what I read on social media has been agreed using  the inauthenticity of chatbots. I do not want conformity in what I read and those who use chatbots to precis what is said on podcasts are devaluing the creativity process to a point where we will find such expression career limiting. 42 years on from 1984, I fear we have not learned from Orwell’s warning.