Russell T Davies criticises BBC boss’s ‘clumsy’ AI Doctor Who comments
Russell T Davies has criticised BBC director general Matt Brittin for calling an unofficial, AI-generated Doctor Who episode “pretty good”, saying the comment was clumsy in an industry where writers and artists are directly affected by AI. Brittin later said he had been highlighting the pace of technological change and affirmed that human creativity would remain central to the BBC.
Davies said he does not use AI to write scripts and is concerned it could replace writers; he called using AI to produce a first draft “shocking”. Brittin became director general in May 2026 after working at Google. Davies also said another Doctor Who series is planned, with a new Doctor and companion expected to begin production next summer, although he will not be involved.
- Davies says Brittin’s AI comments were clumsy.
- He fears AI could replace television writers.
- A new Doctor Who series is planned for next summer.
New here? Start with this
Doctor Who is a long-running BBC science-fiction series about an alien time traveller known as the Doctor, who explores the universe with human companions. Russell T Davies is a television writer who has worked on the programme as its lead writer and producer.
Artificial intelligence tools can generate text and images, raising questions about how they may affect creative work. Writers and artists have raised concerns about jobs, ownership and whether AI-made material can match human work; broadcasters such as the BBC must weigh these issues as the technology develops.
The BBC is Britain’s public service broadcaster, and its director general leads the organisation. Comments from senior BBC figures about AI can matter to people who make programmes, as well as to audiences concerned about how the broadcaster will use the technology.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Davies’s criticism reflects a reasonable concern that praising an AI-generated episode may signal that machine-made work is an acceptable substitute for writers and artists whose livelihoods and creative contribution are at stake. In a publicly funded broadcaster, leaders have particular reason to communicate carefully about technology that could weaken professional standards or employment.
The case against
Brittin’s comment can be understood as an attempt to acknowledge how quickly AI is advancing, rather than to endorse replacing human creators. Exploring AI-generated work may help the BBC understand the technology’s capabilities and limits, while his assurance that human creativity will remain central addresses concerns about its role.