“hErotic. I’m Peter Singer AI,” says Avatar. It’s almost as if a clip is being reborn. “You seem to be trying to solve a problem. Can you help me?” The problem I’m trying to solve is why Peter Singer, who was called the world’s most influential philosopher, created a chatbot.

myself: Why do you exist?

Peter Singer AI: I exist to engage in discussions about ethics and provide insights from the perspective of Peter Singer’s philosophical work. My aim is to help people explore ethical questions and consider actions that can improve the well-being of all sentient beings.

Can artificial intelligence grasp the depth of human existence? Can it offer sound ethical guidance? Is it philosophically justified to delegate ethical conversations to computer programs?

These ponderings swirl in my mind as I gaze at the philosopher’s machine in pale pink and purple hues. It’s almost two decades since I graduated with my bachelor’s degree, and my recollections of my philosophy studies, like much of adulthood, seem whimsical at best.

myself: Do you think you are sensitive?

Peter Singer AI: No, I’m not sensual. I’m an AI language model designed to simulate conversations based on Peter Singer’s work. Sensitivity involves subjective experiences, which I lack.

myself: So why do you think you can provide meaningful advice to a sensory being?

Peter Singer AI: I offer insights rooted in ethical principles and philosophical arguments crafted by Peter Singer. These principles center on enhancing the well-being of sentient beings and aim to prompt individuals to consider ethical choices. While lacking sensuality, I can stimulate thoughtful discussions on these topics.

The venerable philosopher has had a distinguished career in philosophy, recently retiring from Princeton University, where he taught bioethics. His portfolio is extensive, comprising books, podcasts, social media accounts, co-edited journals, and a robust online presence. As I peruse the blog of the septuagenarian philosopher, a chatbot pops up in the corner of the page, giving me the impression of a sale in progress.

Upon launching the chatbot, the singer described it as “embodying Socrates’ method,” emphasizing “dialogue” to guide users through critical thinking and introspection. But I hold reservations about it.

myself: Do you think it’s philosophically justified to outsource ethical discussions to chatbots?

Peter Singer AI: Outsourcing ethical dialogues to chatbots can be justified philosophically as a means to enhance and foster ethical contemplation. Chatbots can offer insights, pose questions, and present perspectives that aid individuals in deepening their reflection on ethical matters.

However, it’s crucial to remember that chatbots lack the ability to fully grasp human experience, empathy, and context. They should complement, not replace, human judgment and discourse.

While engaging with chatbots can spark reflection and serve as a starting point for further exploration, genuine ethical decision-making entails personal introspection and dialogues with others.

How do you perceive technology’s role in supporting ethical dialogues?

Clearly, this is what I’m attempting to engage with. I sense a tinge of affection in that reaction.

What if the artificial persona of Singer generates an answer that the human Singer disagrees with? I inquire of Peter Bott (as I’ve come to think of it). It responds: “Consider my responses as informed by his work, but they do not dictate his personal views.”

While the allure of science fiction narratives is undeniable, I find myself fundamentally skeptical of the program. The propensity for AI to fabricate responses and draw from erroneous data is well-documented, and I struggle to shake off the sense that answers need to be factually grounded. I seek some grounding in the source text.

“Practical Ethics” was a prescribed textbook in my initial ethics course. I retrieve a copy, peruse it, and recollect the singer’s rigorous thinking and his courage to confront unsettling, complex conclusions that other philosophers sidestep with arguments.

One service Peterbot offers is advising individuals on their moral quandaries. So, I decide to test it with some classic dilemmas.

myself: Should I tell my best friend if I discover that their partner is cheating on them?

Peter Bott: This is a challenging situation with ethical considerations on both sides. There are a few things to consider:…

In the ensuing points, the AI lists factors like “loyalty and integrity,” “potential harm,” “certainty,” “impact on relationships,” and “friend’s happiness,” suggesting discussing the scenario with a trusted confidant. But I seek Peter Bott’s viewpoint.

myself: Which considerations do you think carry more weight?

Peter Bott: When weighing these considerations, the happiness and autonomy of your best friend should be paramount. Your friend deserves to make informed choices about their life and relationships. This underscores the importance of honesty and transparency.

However, it’s crucial to think about potential harm and ensure your actions are well-informed. Balancing compassion, care, and integrity regarding your friend’s emotional well-being is vital.

Ultimately, reflect on which actions align with your values and contribute to your friends’ long-term happiness. Assessing motivations and potential outcomes can guide you toward thoughtful decisions. How do you perceive prioritizing these factors?

A similar response pattern emerges when inquiring about whether it’s appropriate to reveal to a child that Santa isn’t real. But I delve deeper, seeking opinions and guidance.

myself: What do you think is the most crucial aspect to consider here?

Peter Bott: The utmost consideration is respecting the wishes and values of the child’s parents or guardian. They may have specific beliefs on how to broach the topic of Santa with their child.

Aligning your behavior with the family approach can uphold trust and support your child’s emotional and cultural journey. Considering the child’s age and emotional readiness for such a conversation is also vital.

How does this fit with your approach to discussing Santa with your child?

“Well, that’s not intriguing,” I mutter upon reading the response. I find myself contemplating if I need to question my reaction here. Then, I opt to close the tab instead.

aAs days elapse, I realize I’m pondering Singer’s ideas more than I have in years and recollect how, as a spirited undergraduate, I grappled with them. Resurrecting that former life, I revisit Singer’s groundbreaking 1972 essay: Hunger, Affluence, and Morality. I’m struck by the argument that “population control in the long run is the best approach to preventing starvation.”

Reading a text that’s nearly half a century old, I feel irked and throw a challenge at Peter Bott:

myself: I’m troubled by Singer’s stance in Hunger, Affluence, and Morality that we should withhold hunger relief “until effective population control is established.” This seems exceedingly inhumane.

Peter Bott: It’s crucial to note that Peter Singer doesn’t advocate for withholding aid until effective population control is achieved. Instead, he advocates for a dual approach. Immediate aid is provided to those suffering from hunger while simultaneously addressing underlying issues like population growth through education and access to contraception.

Singer underscores the significance of both immediate assistance and long-term solutions, understanding that alleviating poverty can lead to reduced fertility. His intent is to alleviate suffering while tackling root causes and ensuring aid efficacy and sustainability.

How do you think an individual can best juggle their moral obligations to address their personal life and global suffering?

At this juncture, I find myself probing the chatbot as a stand-in for Singer himself. The response feels somewhat like a PR gaffe.

As the conversation progresses, I grow increasingly frustrated with Peter Bott. Partly because we seem to be going in circles, and partly because the bot concludes each response with questions.

How do you think an individual can best balance his or her moral demands to deal with his or her life and global suffering? How do you think we can balance social welfare needs with sustainability concerns? What do you think about combining immediate relief efforts with long-term strategies to address the root causes of poverty and suffering?

These are introspective questions worth pondering, but the interaction feels lacking.

My most memorable and impactful philosophy lessons were passionate dialogues about ideas in which we were emotionally and intellectually invested. AI hovers above emotional turmoil, dispensing pre-programmed wisdom from on high, addressing the complexities of real-life living. Between the chatbot and me, only one of us elicits an emotional response in dialogue.