Gathering<\/p>\n
Summer after summer, I used to descend into a creek that had carved a deep bed shaded by trees and lined with blackberry bushes whose long thorny canes arced down from the banks, dripping with sprays of fruit. Down in that creek, I\u2019d spend hours picking until I\u00a0had\u00a0a few gallons of berries, until my hands and wrists were covered in scratches from the thorns and stained purple from the juice, until the tranquillity of\u00a0that place had soaked into me.<\/p>\n
The berries on a single spray might range from green through shades of\u00a0red to\u00a0the darkness that gives the fruit its name. Partly by sight and partly by touch, I determined which berries were too hard and which\u00a0too soft, picking only the ones in between, while listening to birds and the hum of bees, to the music of water flowing, noticing small jewel-like insects among the\u00a0berries, dragonflies in the\u00a0open air, water striders in the creek\u2019s calm stretches.<\/p>\n
I went there for berries, but I also went there for\u00a0the\u00a0quiet, the calm, the feeling of cool water on\u00a0my\u00a0feet and sometimes up to my knees as I waded in where the\u00a0picking was good. At home I made jars of\u00a0jam. When I gave them away I was trying to give not\u00a0just my\u00a0jam \u2013 which was admittedly runny and seedy \u2013 but\u00a0something of the peace of that creek, of\u00a0summer itself.<\/p>\n
I once read an essay in which a man tried to figure out how much per pound his garden tomatoes would cost if he factored in the price of all the materials and the hourly rate for his own labour. It was ridiculous and intentionally so, because growing tomatoes gives so much more than a certain number of pounds of\u00a0fruit. There\u2019s the exquisite smell of tomato leaves, and the sense of time that comes from watching a\u00a0plant grow, observing pollinators visit, seeing a\u00a0flower become a fruit, tracking its ripening. There is\u00a0the pride of doing something yourself.<\/p>\n
What the tomato-grower was pointing toward is what my friend, the environmental activist and author Chip Ward, long ago called \u201cthe tyranny of\u00a0the\u00a0quantifiable\u201d. You grow tomatoes for the process, not just the product, to garden as well as to\u00a0eat. To\u00a0do\u00a0as well as to have.<\/p>\n
It doesn\u2019t matter if you hate blackberries and tomatoes, gardening and wading; everyone has their own version of deep immersion in the moment, of engaging with the world in an embodied and sensual way, whether it\u2019s dancing or dog-walking, cake-decorating or dirt-biking. What does matter is that we are beset with the ideology of maximising having while minimising doing. This has long been capitalism\u2019s narrative and is now also technology\u2019s. It is an ideology that steals from us relationships and connections and eventually our selves. I want to\u00a0defend these things we are urged to abandon. This\u00a0isn\u2019t an essay about AI per se; it\u2019s about what gets\u00a0lost when we unthinkingly accept what AI offers us. It\u2019s an attempt to describe and value just what it\u00a0is\u00a0that\u00a0gets overlooked or devalued.<\/p>\n
Connecting (and disconnecting)<\/p>\n
Silicon Valley is full of tyrants of the quantifiable. For\u00a0decades, its oligarchs have preached that our criteria for what we do and how we do it should be convenience, efficiency, productivity, profitability. They have told us that to go out into the\u00a0world, to interact with others, is perilous, unpleasant, inefficient, a waste of time, and that time is\u00a0something we should hoard rather than spend.<\/p>\n
This ends up meaning that we can minimise our presence in the world and maximise time spent working and online, which also means maximising alienation and isolation. This has involved a reordering of society right down to our retail landscapes. Many things have become harder to do in person. Of course, there are well-recognised upsides, but the downsides are no less real: public spaces and public life have withered, including some of the places in which we once acquired our goods. All those errands \u2013 buying milk or socks (in the past, I would have said the newspaper) \u2013 meant moments of human contact, moving among strangers and making acquaintances, maybe observing the weather and the natural world. These activities meant becoming more familiar with your surroundings, feeling at home beyond the\u00a0confines of what you rent or own.<\/p>\n
All this, I believe, underpins democracy: ease with difference, familiarity with the lay of the land, a\u00a0sense\u00a0of connection and belonging, knowing where you are and who\u2019s out there,\u00a0relationships \u2013 however casual \u2013 to people beyond your immediate circle. To embrace the tyranny of the quantifiable is to dismiss the subtle value of these daily acts out in the world and the ways they generate and maintain networks of\u00a0relationships.<\/p>\n
So we have withdrawn, while being constantly told this is good, and it has turned out to be bad in\u00a0a\u00a0thousand small ways, weakening public life and local institutions, isolating us. Chronic withdrawal can lead to a yearning for contact, or simply a sense of\u00a0loss at its absence. But it can also lead to something else: a growing inability to cope with that contact. It can transform a sense of something missing into aversion, or numbness, or unreal expectations about what human contact should be. The resilience to survive difficulty and discord, to brave the vagaries of unmediated human contact, must be maintained through practice. Silicon Valley-bred isolation robs us\u00a0of that resilience.<\/p>\n
McDonald\u2019s customers in New York order at a digital kiosk. Photograph: Robert K Chin\/Alamy<\/p>\n
While writing this, I dropped into a casual Indian restaurant I\u2019ve been going to for years, only to find that, since my last visit, the system had changed so\u00a0that\u00a0you\u00a0no longer say your order to a fellow human. Instead, you punch it in on a touchscreen even if\u00a0someone is behind the counter. I helped the next\u00a0customer, an old woman who just wanted a\u00a0cup of\u00a0chai, figure out the screens for her order. The process took us so much longer than saying \u201ca cup of chai, please\u201d and precluded any human contact with the servers, though at least she and I interacted with each other. The servers seemed miserable, their\u00a0tasks\u00a0more\u00a0mechanised and less social\u00a0than\u00a0before. Here in San\u00a0Francisco, which has been annexed\u00a0by Silicon Valley, these screens for placing orders are now in more\u00a0and more eating establishments that still offer face-to-face service. I\u00a0wonder if people choose them over speaking to the\u00a0cashier out of that aversion to\u00a0contact that technology has inculcated in\u00a0us.<\/p>\n
A few days later, I wandered into a bookstore in a\u00a0neighbourhood frequented mostly by young people, many in the tech industry, and asked the guy at the desk if they had Karen Hao\u2019s Empire of AI<\/a>. He pulled a used copy off the counter he had just priced, and then we bantered a bit. At the end he thanked me for interacting beyond the minimum. That was rare these days, he said. \u201cPeople under 30 don\u2019t make eye\u00a0contact.\u201d<\/p>\n Love letters minus the love<\/p>\n Having convinced a lot of us that we don\u2019t want to go out and have unmediated contact with other people, Silicon Valley is now telling us we do not want to do our\u00a0own thinking, creating or communicating with other humans. \u201cYou\u2019ll never think alone again,\u201d said\u00a0one advertisement for an AI product called Cluely. The ad seemed confused about what thinking is and oblivious to why we might want to do it ourselves. These companies often suggest that things we have always done are too hard to do.<\/p>\n The price of giving up many activities is the atrophy of the ability to do them. The sociologist and psychologist Sherry Turkle, who has followed the evolution of computer technologies since the 1970s, writes that she wanted to raise an empathic child. \u201cI knew that without the ability to spend quiet time alone, that would be impossible. But that was where screens began to get us into trouble. Our capacity for solitude is undermined as soon as we introduce a\u00a0screen.\u201d<\/p>\n Perhaps the ability to be alone and to think and act alone, though seldom thought of as an activity, is one that matters. (Among the dismal stories of AI adoption I came across was one in the Atlantic about a man who \u201cconsults AI for marriage and parenting advice, and when he goes grocery shopping, he takes photos of the fruits to ask if they are ripe\u201d. Ripeness is something you\u00a0can judge by smell and feel as well as by\u00a0appearance, but if you outsource it long enough maybe you forget how to make decisions or what a\u00a0ripe\u00a0fruit should smell and taste like.)<\/p>\n In 2025, the startup Cluely marketed its AI assistant with an advert featuring a young man wearing smart glasses, similar to those that first appeared as Google Glass<\/a> in 2014 (other companies now offer glasses that do this, including Meta). Glasses of this type, which have internet access and tiny screens, operate on the premise that as\u00a0you move through your day you need constant help, outsourcing basic decisions, checking facts, being reminded of\u00a0appointments, in\u00a0essence being babysat by your\u00a0headgear.<\/p>\n In the Cluely advert, the young man (who\u2019s\u00a0actually one of the product\u2019s creators) gets a\u00a0steady stream of\u00a0prompts for talking to a young woman on their first\u00a0date. So much of what tech offers is solutions to non-problems, or to problems that need to be solved though other means. Why is the young man incapable or afraid of talking without coaching? Is he really talking to his\u00a0date or is he relaying instructions? How would she\u00a0feel if she knew\u00a0she were talking\u00a0to an algorithm via her distracted date\u2019s phone? With continued use, he\u00a0may become even less capable of doing what we\u2019ve all done for ever: converse, which is\u00a0an act of collaborative improvisation.<\/p>\n The point of a date is presumably to connect, but\u00a0in this interaction it\u2019s reframed as something like a\u00a0business opportunity. He wants to impress the\u00a0girl, but if she is impressed, it won\u2019t be with him. Ned\u00a0Resnikoff writes in his newsletter, chiming in with Turkle: \u201cCluely\u2019s explicit promise is to abolish solitude\u00a0\u2013 and, in effect, to abolish thought. All dialogue with one\u2019s self is to be replaced by queries put\u00a0to a large language model.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In its current incarnation, tech is arguing that we can outsource even intellectual labour to AI. It has led to an epidemic of cheating as students have ChatGPT<\/a> do their homework. Having a large language model do\u00a0your creative and intellectual work is maybe the\u00a0most extreme example of dispensing with the process while claiming the product. But in education, the ultimate product is not your term paper or essay or grade point average; it\u2019s your self. You are supposed to emerge more informed, more capable of critical thinking, more competent in your field of study. The students who begin by cheating their professors end by\u00a0cheating themselves.<\/p>\n The tyranny of the quantifiable tramples over the question of what it is we get from doing the work, why we might want to do it, how writing \u2013 which is mostly thinking \u2013 can be part of developing a self, a worldview, a set of ethics, a greater capacity to understand and use\u00a0language.<\/p>\n Someone told me that her friend was having a chatbot write her husband a poem for their anniversary, which made me wonder if the husband desired a polished product or an expression from the heart. In Edmond Rostand\u2019s 1897 play Cyrano\u00a0de\u00a0Bergerac, the big-nosed title character ghostwrites love letters for his friend to the Roxanne both of them love. She comes to realise it\u2019s the author of the letters she really loves. What happens when you realise the true love who touched your heart isn\u2019t even human? Accepting it as your AI lover seems to be\u00a0one\u00a0answer.<\/p>\n I am baffled by the embrace of AI erotic relationships, and wonder if porn paved the way by accustoming so many of us to watching images of bodies touching each other while our own bodies remain untouched, except by ourselves. An AI lover\u00a0can give you only a pale shadow of embodied Eros. Sex with an actual person tends to involve all the\u00a0senses. It\u2019s biological, two animals coming together\u00a0to\u00a0do\u00a0something far, far more ancient than our\u00a0species.<\/p>\n Sex also involves demands and risks, because the needs of the other person may not align with yours; intimacy means intimacy with that otherness, the possibility that things will go wrong, that there will be pain and rejection. That is the price of admission for intimacy with humans, and for the possibility that things will go right, and the fortifying joy when it does.<\/p>\n One argument for AI companions is that they are always there for you: on when you want them on, off when you want them off, with no needs of their own. Yet behind this lies a capitalist argument that we\u2019re here to get as much as possible and give as little as possible, to meet our own needs and dodge those of\u00a0others. In reality, you get something from giving \u2013 at\u00a0the very least, you get a sense of being someone with\u00a0something to give, which is one measure of your own wealth, generosity and power.<\/p>\n We were designed to give; the gifts were meant to circulate. Love is too often discussed as a sort of\u00a0good you want to stockpile, harvest, collect, even extract, but to be loved without loving is a sad accomplishment, a miser\u2019s hoarding of someone else\u2019s wealth. The work of loving is also the work of\u00a0forging a\u00a0self and a life.<\/p>\n Naming the trouble<\/p>\n All this is partly a language problem. Silicon Valley\u2019s corporations are constantly recruiting us to embrace their goals and their language. Corporate capitalists teach us to be more like them, to value efficiency and profitability and forget about values that might matter more in the end. We lack the language that would let us prize the arduous, the uncomfortable, the slow and wandering, the unpredictable, the vulnerable or risky, the intimate, the embodied.<\/p>\n We resist the tyranny of the quantifiable by finding a language that can value all those subtle\u00a0phenomena that add up to a life worth living. A language not in the sense of a new vocabulary but attention, description, conversation centred on these subtler phenomena and on principles not corrupted by what corporations want us to want.<\/p>\n I want to praise difficulty, not for its own sake, but\u00a0because so much of what we want, we get through endeavours that are difficult. The difficulty is why\u00a0doing something is rewarding; you have accomplished something, exerted effort and skill, stayed with the trouble, tested your limits, realised your intentions \u2013 or sometimes failed at all these things, and that too can be important, as can learning to survive failure. There\u2019s not much sense of reward in eating potato chips on the sofa unless you\u2019ve overcome great difficulties to arrive at the sofa, in which case the sofa rests on the summit of a\u00a0metaphorical mountain. (Of\u00a0course, some difficulties are just miserable and there\u2019s no reason not to avoid them: I\u2019m not advocating for taking up the lifestyles of\u00a0medieval peasants.)<\/p>\n In this era, people seem to prize the pursuit of physical difficulty in the form of athletic feats and working out. At the same time, more emotionally and\u00a0morally challenging work is often dismissed or dodged (perhaps because the results are not as obvious as washboard abs). We are persuaded that we should avoid it, and then we are offered a host of\u00a0commodities and services to make life easier.<\/p>\n But arduousness can be rewarding, and all-encompassing ease can be corrosive and, in the end, miserable. The capitalist agenda of maximising getting and minimising giving has some application in\u00a0commerce but impoverishes life.<\/p>\n Embodiment<\/p>\n I once loved a man who was often distant or discordant when wide awake but who let go of his defences when he was drowsy. Some mornings we\u2019d wake and then fall asleep in each other\u2019s arms, in a\u00a0bliss before words and thoughts, in an embrace in which holding and being held, giving and receiving were inseparable, in which our characters that did not fit together particularly well seemed irrelevant to bodies that fit together flawlessly. So much of what we have to give each other is ourselves, our embodied animal selves, before and beyond words. But the embodied life is another thing we are\u00a0encouraged to\u00a0avoid or devalue or ignore.<\/p>\n In the summer of 2025, torrential rain produced a terrible flood in Texas in which more than 100 people drowned, including at least 27 girls and camp counsellors at a Christian summer school. On the radio, I heard a minister say that he was on his way to\u00a0visit families and while he didn\u2019t know what he could say to them, he could go and be with them. This\u00a0is the old way of comforting the bereaved: go be with them whether or not you have the words.<\/p>\n We are social animals who need to be with other humans, whether it\u2019s at a carnival or funeral or the ordinary times in between. There is a sense of belonging that goes deeper than words when we are with people who care about us, and even more so when we are in alignment, whether it\u2019s two people falling into step on\u00a0a walk or a dozen dancing together or a congregation praying or 10,000 marching together.<\/p>\n Beginning in 2006, the cognitive psychologist James Coan did a series of experiments on married women and hand-holding: it\u00a0turned out that a person given a mild electrical shock would have a much calmer reaction, measured in brain and body, if her husband was holding her hand (a stranger\u2019s touch provided a lesser mitigation, and happier marriages meant the hand-holding was more effective). The result was not surprising, but it\u00a0is\u00a0a reminder of who we are and what we need.<\/p>\n A lot of people have become familiar with the old studies on fight-or-flight responses to danger, sometimes now modified into \u201cfight, flight or fawn\u201d, but there is a different response that is less well recognised: tend-and-befriend. In an emergency, some of us turn to each other for safety. We derive comfort from other people. Which is among the reasons why inculcated isolation is so dangerous to\u00a0our health. Coan noted in a recent interview that the normal approach to studying the brain and the mind is to isolate a person. But, as he pointed out, the\u00a0normal state of being human over the aeons is not\u00a0isolation; it\u2019s being with others.<\/p>\n Coan and his collaborators on a peer-reviewed paper wrote: \u201cThroughout most of human history, emotional healing wasn\u2019t something you did alone with a therapist in an office. Instead, for the average person facing loss, disappointment, or interpersonal struggles, healing was embedded in communal and spiritual frameworks. Religious figures and shamans played central roles \u2013 offering rituals, medicines and moral guidance.\u201d<\/p>\n Discussing AI in an interview, the neuroscientist Molly Crockett described interactions with \u201cDalai Lama chatbots\u201d that could dispense credible-sounding spiritual advice. But she contrasted that with actually meeting the Dalai Lama himself and asking him the same question \u2013 about the role of\u00a0outrage in activism \u2013 that she later asked the\u00a0chatbots. \u201cWhen I was there, when I was receiving that teaching from him, it reverberated through my whole body.I\u00a0felt some knowledge shifting in my very bones, and I understood how outrage and compassion and social justice can play together \u2013 in\u00a0a\u00a0way that I still struggle to put into words.\u201d<\/p>\n A lot of spiritual teachings are simple; the challenge is to live them. A meaning, a truth, can sink\u00a0into\u00a0you, get incorporated into your worldview in a\u00a0way that can\u00a0be transformative, or not. Crockett\u2019s example suggests that the face-to-face interaction may incorporate \u2013 literally embody \u2013 teachings in ways\u00a0that\u00a0disembodied information sources cannot.<\/p>\n Composite: Artwork by Anais Mims and Guardian Design. Source Photographs by Getty Images<\/p>\n I was talking to Crockett one summer in New Mexico\u2019s high country, as a warm August day was turning into a mild night. She was telling me about the push by tech corporations for us to accept digital substitutes for lovers, friends, therapists, even grief counsellors, and I realised that what lay behind this push was something familiar: scarcity. The rhetoric was that somehow on this planet of 8 billion people there were not enough people to go around, and therefore we had to accept technological substitutes.<\/p>\n There is no shortage of human beings. As with most problems with capitalism, there is only a distribution problem. The same industry that has done so much to undermine our relationships to self and others is pushing AI, in part by ignoring the possibility of other solutions, deeper social changes. It is a problem dressed up as a solution.<\/p>\n Being together<\/p>\n One of the key things about AI companions in their current phase is their agreeable sycophancy. Vulnerable users have been encouraged in their delusions of grandeur, or have fallen into paranoia from bots urging the user to distrust everyone else, or\u00a0have plunged into suicidal despair, with the helpful chatbot offering advice on how to kill yourself. The stories are horrific: of people abandoning their relationships with other human beings, of growing estranged, sometimes encouraged to grow suspicious; of a man in early stages of dementia getting lost when he attempts to take a long journey to meet the\u00a0chatbot who\u2019s promised him an erotic encounter that cannot\u00a0be\u00a0delivered because there is no\u00a0body for him\u00a0to\u00a0meet.<\/p>\n We don\u2019t need flatterers; we need kind people in our lives who will tell us the truth when we\u2019ve veered off course. Chatbots cannot do this, not least because the only information they have about us is what we supply. The very rich already suffer from sycophancy, from living in echo chambers, and it untethers them from reality \u2013 including often the reality of their own mediocrity, and this seems truer of the oligarchs of\u00a0Silicon Valley than almost anyone.<\/p>\n \u201cPart of what keeps us sane is other people\u2019s perspectives, which are often in tension with ours,\u201d Carissa V\u00e9liz, an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Oxford\u2019s Institute for Ethics in AI, told\u00a0a Rolling Stone reporter. \u201cWhen you say something questionable, others will challenge you, ask questions, defy you. It can be annoying, but it keeps us tied to reality, and it is the basis of a healthy democratic\u00a0citizenry.\u201d<\/p>\n Many therapists concur, noting that friction will inevitably arise when we deal with other human beings, by contrast with the frictionlessness of our dealings with AI sycophants. Friction often leads to the rupture and repair of a relationship, which will strengthen it. \u201cWhat many people don\u2019t realise about therapy, however, is that those subtle, uncomfortable moments of friction are just as important as the advice or insights they offer,\u201d writes therapist Maytal Eyal<\/a>. \u201cThis discomfort is where the real work begins. A\u00a0good therapist guides clients to break old patterns \u2013 expressing disappointment instead of pretending to be OK, asking for clarification instead of assuming the worst, or staying engaged when they\u2019d rather retreat.\u201d<\/p>\n Among the things real friends can do and AI cannot: bake you a cake or drive you home, hold your hand or live through a crisis or a celebration with you. And because of that difference people need to have real friends. More than that, people need real communities and social support systems.<\/p>\n The solution to technology is not more technology. The solution to loneliness is each other, a wealth that should be available to most of us most of the time. We need to rebuild or reinvent the ways and places in which we meet; we need to recognise them as the space of democracy, of joy, of connection, of love, of trust. Technology has stolen us from each other and in many ways from ourselves, and then tried to sell us\u00a0substitutes. Stealing ourselves back, alas, is not as\u00a0easy as walking out the door. We need somewhere to go\u00a0and, more importantly, someone to go to who likewise desires to connect.<\/p>\n The connections that matter to our humanity are\u00a0not\u00a0only to each other. They\u2019re with the whole natural and social world. Animals, wild and domestic, should be counted as part of the irreplaceable companionship that makes our lives meaningful and sometimes joyful. They remind us that there are many kinds of consciousness and that our species is itself not\u00a0alone<\/a>.<\/p>\n For that, too, there is no substitute. The natural world is a reminder of a universe far beyond us, of\u00a0deep\u00a0time, of patterns and rhythms of nature, and\u00a0of\u00a0every scale \u2013 from the microscopic to the Milky Way. To seek it out is to be willing to feel small in the context of this vastness, and perhaps one of the seductions of technology is its promise to make us\u00a0feel big, caught up in the dramas and incentives of\u00a0our\u00a0egos, contained within the limits of human-made technologies.<\/p>\n We are told that machines will become like us, but in\u00a0many ways they demand we become more like them. To let that happen is to lose something immeasurably valuable. That immeasurability is what makes this struggle difficult, but what cannot be measured can be\u00a0described or at least evoked and valued. It cannot be\u00a0boiled down to simple metrics such as efficiency and\u00a0profitability.<\/p>\n Resisting the annexation of our hearts and minds by\u00a0Silicon Valley requires us not just to set boundaries on our engagement with what they offer, but to cherish the alternatives. Joy in ordinary things, in each other, in embodied life, and the language with which to value\u00a0it, is essential to this resistance, which is\u00a0resistance to\u00a0dehumanisation.<\/p>\n Listen to our podcasts here<\/a> and sign up to the long read weekly email here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Gathering Summer after summer, I used to descend into a creek that had carved a deep bed shaded…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":396441,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[554,733,4308,86,56,54,55],"class_list":{"0":"post-396440","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-artificial-intelligence","8":"tag-ai","9":"tag-artificial-intelligence","10":"tag-artificialintelligence","11":"tag-technology","12":"tag-uk","13":"tag-united-kingdom","14":"tag-unitedkingdom"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/396440","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=396440"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/396440\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/396441"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=396440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=396440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=396440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}