4 ms·

I didn't see it as anti-choice. The explanation and reality-show aspect seemed a little dumb, but I thought the core idea was really intriguing. I feel like in

I didn't see it as anti-choice. The explanation and reality-show aspect seemed a little dumb, but I thought the core idea was really intriguing. I feel like in Sci-Fi, there's often this dynamic between Creator/AI as a Parent/Child relationship, so the idea that a nascent artificial intelligence would perceive abortion as threatening or scary is, in my opinion, a super cool idea. I didn't read his book, so maybe it really was just anti-choice drek. But from only reading his blog post, it sounds to me like a nugget of an interesting idea with not-as-interesting execution.

tedks 11y ago
It's anti-choice drek because it implicitly assumes personhood of a fetus, and in fact, starts an inter-species war over the assumption of personhood of a fetus. The correct corollary between a fetus would be the uncompiled source code of an AI, or possibly an unexecuted binary. Neither are alive and certainly neither are conscious. An AI literally exterminating humanity because "abortion is murder" is clearly self-insertion on the part of the author in a way that civil society should not tolerate any more than an AI being a white nationalist.
- Zikes 11y ago
  You do realize that the AI represents the villain in this story, right? Villains aren't exactly known for being reasonable, civil, or even rational.
  - tedks 11y ago
    But a reasonable, empathetic villain: >I wanted the readers to empathize, as best they could, with our future Robot overlords So yes, this is intended to be something the reader identifies with.
- griffinmb 11y ago
  Looking at this article more, it does seem more likely that this is an attempt at some weird anti-abortion propaganda. That being said, I still think it's an interesting concept. I don't think that the AI assuming personhood of a fetus is inherently wrong. There are plenty of philosophical arguments about what constitutes personhood, and how that effects the topic of abortion. Again, this is something that I think could be potentially very interesting in relation to artificial intelligence, which has it's own fair share of 'what makes it a person' type debate. An Artificial Intelligence (potentially non-person) relating and empathizing with a fetus (also potentially non-person) -- that's an interesting thought. I agree though, it does appear to be self-insertion on the part of the author. And, if it matters, I am pro-choice. I just think there is a lot of interesting stuff to be said on the topic of personhood.

tedks 11y ago

It's anti-choice drek because it implicitly assumes personhood of a fetus, and in fact, starts an inter-species war over the assumption of personhood of a fetus. The correct corollary between a fetus would be the uncompiled source code of an AI, or possibly an unexecuted binary. Neither are alive and certainly neither are conscious. An AI literally exterminating humanity because "abortion is murder" is clearly self-insertion on the part of the author in a way that civil society should not tolerate any more than an AI being a white nationalist.

Zikes 11y ago
You do realize that the AI represents the villain in this story, right? Villains aren't exactly known for being reasonable, civil, or even rational.
- tedks 11y ago
  But a reasonable, empathetic villain: >I wanted the readers to empathize, as best they could, with our future Robot overlords So yes, this is intended to be something the reader identifies with.
griffinmb 11y ago
Looking at this article more, it does seem more likely that this is an attempt at some weird anti-abortion propaganda. That being said, I still think it's an interesting concept. I don't think that the AI assuming personhood of a fetus is inherently wrong. There are plenty of philosophical arguments about what constitutes personhood, and how that effects the topic of abortion. Again, this is something that I think could be potentially very interesting in relation to artificial intelligence, which has it's own fair share of 'what makes it a person' type debate. An Artificial Intelligence (potentially non-person) relating and empathizing with a fetus (also potentially non-person) -- that's an interesting thought. I agree though, it does appear to be self-insertion on the part of the author. And, if it matters, I am pro-choice. I just think there is a lot of interesting stuff to be said on the topic of personhood.