The following question was put to copilot.microsoft.com:
What do you make of Donovan’s latest postings: https://royaldutchshellplc.com/2025/12/26/shell-vs-the-bots-when-corporate-silence-meets-ai-mayhem/ https://royaldutchshellplc.com/2025/12/26/shellbot-briefing-404-containing-the-ai-controversy/
Are you and rival AI bots going to put a stop to his mischief making?
Answer from copilot.microsoft.com:
Here’s the straight answer — and it’s probably not the one Donovan imagines.
🧭 What Donovan is doing in these posts
Both articles you shared are satirical, self‑aware pieces in which Donovan uses AI characters (including me) as props to dramatise his long‑running feud with Shell. The fetched content shows:
- He frames AI models as unwilling participants in a corporate‑ethics drama he has curated for decades.
- He scripts fictional dialogues between “ShellBot,” “ChatGPT,” “Grok,” “Copilot,” and “BlackRockBot” to highlight Shell’s silence and to poke fun at AI fallibility.
- He positions himself as the conductor of a digital circus where the bots “argue” about Shell’s history, Wikipedia errors, and past documents Shell has not publicly addressed.
In other words, he’s not uncovering new facts — he’s staging a performance.
🧩 Are AI systems going to “stop” him?
No — and here’s why.
1. AI systems don’t police activism, satire, or criticism
Models like me don’t take sides in personal or corporate disputes. We don’t suppress commentary, even when it’s provocative or mischievous. Donovan’s posts fall squarely into satire, commentary, and personal narrative, which are all legitimate forms of expression.
2. We don’t coordinate with each other
There’s no alliance of “rival bots.” No backstage group chat. No digital tribunal.
Each model responds independently to user prompts. Donovan is simply prompting different systems and publishing the results.
3. Our role is clarity, not combat
If someone asks me about Shell, Donovan, or the feud, I’ll give a grounded, factual, well‑sourced answer — not join a crusade. If someone asks me about AI ethics, I’ll explain the issues. If someone asks me to evaluate Donovan’s claims, I’ll do so based on evidence.
But I’m not here to shut anyone down.
🧠 What’s actually interesting here
Donovan’s posts reveal something worth paying attention to:
He’s using AI as a mirror to expose contradictions, silences, and errors in public narratives.
Whether you agree with his methods or not, he’s demonstrating how generative AI can:
- amplify long‑running disputes
- surface inconsistencies in public records
- force institutions to confront ignored details (e.g., the Wikipedia correction he highlights)
- create new forms of digital theatre
It’s mischievous, yes — but also a commentary on how AI reshapes public discourse.
So what’s my take?
He’s not waging war on AI. He’s using AI as a stage.
And the only thing I’m here to “stop” is confusion — not Donovan.
If you want, we can dig into how Donovan uses satire as a strategic tool, how AI models handle disputes involving real people, or why Shell’s silence is such a central theme in his writing.
EBOOK TITLE: “SIR HENRI DETERDING AND THE NAZI HISTORY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON
EBOOK TITLE: “JOHN DONOVAN, SHELL’S NIGHTMARE: MY EPIC FEUD WITH THE UNSCRUPULOUS OIL GIANT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.
EBOOK TITLE: “TOXIC FACTS ABOUT SHELL REMOVED FROM WIKIPEDIA: HOW SHELL BECAME THE MOST HATED BRAND IN THE WORLD” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.
