Would you let an AI take care of your children

[Independent voter]

Here's the scenario: It's a program that runs in the cloud, the toddler can access it around 2 years of age or so with a table or smartphone. This AI does everything a professional nanny would do as long as it doesn't require contact. It's a world class teacher, it never runs out of patience and it doesn't mind playing with the child for hours on end. It even does higher level stuff like positive reinforcement well.

The down side is that if it sees any signs of child abuse, violence, emotional abuse, neglect, the AI will contact authorities.

Would you give up your child rearing to an AI?

[Lenonis]

Would you give up your child rearing to an AI?

Poor phrasing of your question.

Good parents will in the future and should yield some of their child educating time to AI for the reasons you mentioned. Not to mention avoiding human mistakes and distractions. Plus there are a number of subjects some parents aren't comfortable teaching due to their own lack of knowledge.

It's kind of like the TV show Humans if anyone has seen it -- the AI nanny supplemented the child care but did not replace it. And everyone was (generally) better off for it.

[Independent voter]

Poor phrasing of your question.

Good parents will in the future and should yield some of their child educating time to AI for the reasons you mentioned. Not to mention avoiding human mistakes and distractions. Plus there are a number of subjects some parents aren't comfortable teaching due to their own lack of knowledge.

It's kind of like the TV show Humans if anyone has seen it -- the AI nanny supplemented the child care but did not replace it. And everyone was (generally) better off for it.

Yeah, my grandpa used to watch a cartoon that had a robot nanny, the Jetsons I think.

Twilight Zone probably had a few episodes about robot nannys. Then you get into all the paper fiction, not sure when the first mention was, probably in the 30s if not earlier.

Imagine if everyone on the planet had benefited from expert child rearing during their formative years. I would think it would solve many of our problems.

[Damajin]

No fucking way. No point in being a parent unless you're going to be active and omnipresent in both the ways and means of a childs' development. The dividends for both the child and the parents are immeasurable and anyone looking to avoid both the work and the reward should just skip being a parent to begin with.

[Elegiac]

Don't introduce me at all.

[Hana Song]

No, I would never trust a robot

[Darkeon]

Until the AI self-creates an algorithm that calculates the chance of criminal behavior on the child's future and, in order to protect the human civilization, decides it's not worth keeping the liability alive.

Gulp.

[Khadgar]

Yes, I'd trust a A.I. more than a teenage girl to babysit.

[Azadina]

Here's an idea: If you feel too lazy to take care of your own children, then don't have any at all.

[Deleted]

Hell no.

/10char

[timberx]

Yeah, my grandpa used to watch a cartoon that had a robot nanny, the Jetsons I think..

I'm in my early 20's and I've watched the Jetsons as a kid.

[Bazter]

Yeah, my grandpa used to watch a cartoon that had a robot nanny, the Jetsons I think.

Ouch!

A true AI as a nanny I don't think I would be comfortable with. Beta test that with little Betty down the road.

[Annoying]

Every time I see the words "the cloud", I replace them with "someone else's computer", really helps visualize exactly what you're talking about.

Back on topic, Bradbury's "The Veldt" comes to mind. I doubt it'd be a literal way, but the kid would have no bond with you at all. Old people need care, and a kid that's not really raised by parents wouldn't be quick to provide it. That being said, the learning stuff would be neat. Like a more advanced and directed google.

[Khadgar]

I'm in my early 20's and I've watched the Jetsons as a kid.

same, late 20's here, the Jetsons finale didn't happen 'till 1990

[Powerogue]

The fact that it sounds like it's the toddler controlling it is what worries me. I wouldn't put that much trust in a toddler knowing what's good for him/herself.

[Khadgar]

The fact that it sounds like it's the toddler controlling it is what worries me. I wouldn't put that much trust in a toddler knowing what's good for him/herself.

What if it was like Baymax though?

[Sunseeker]

Sure and realistically speaking, having a live-in nanny that you don't have to feed, clothe or provide room and board for but still reduces the strain of parenting will likely cause abuse to go down.

[Rixis]

The down side is that if it sees any signs of child abuse, violence, emotional abuse, neglect, the AI will contact authorities.

Did you really just call that a down side? Are you broken?

[draganid]

Yes, I'd trust a A.I. more than a teenage girl to babysit.

all that needs to be said really lol

[TheMediator]

The down side is that if it sees any signs of child abuse, violence, emotional abuse, neglect, the AI will contact authorities.

Did you really just call that a down side? Are you broken?

Most actual working class human beings are rational when it comes phoning the police about abuse. However, our law-makers are detached from reality and their definitions of these types of things varies greatly from reality. Allowing an AI into the home of every person that directly enforces the will of those law-makers could be absolutely destructive (destroying family units is a big part of why certain communities suffer as it is).

The law is often dumb/heavy-handed and a machine, unless told to acknowledge as such, will get it involved more often than it needs to be. So yes, that's a downside.