In a recent piece documenting some troubling aspects in current Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications, Michael Brown mentioned the difficulty he initially encountered trying to get Anthropic’s “Claude AI” to condemn pedophilia. Brown persisted and when the chatbot finally got its “thinking” right on the repulsive topic, it did “apologize”, conceding “any sexual activity between an adult and a child is unequivocally wrong.” It capped its denunciation with this commendable mouthful: “The wellbeing and safety of children should be society’s top priority.”
Well, look at that! The company behind Claude AI is on the record that children’s safety stands a “top priority”.
Good to know.
Soooooo … are we are to presume, regarding the abortion controversy, this particular iteration of ground-breaking technology has a bias toward the pro-life side of things? That it favors protecting the unborn person awaiting delivery inside his/her mother-to-be? I mean, if Claude admits protecting children ought to be number one on civilization’s to-do list, it would only be consistent that it denounce the homicide of infants inside the womb — just as it would denounce the extermination of those growing outside of same. The only difference between those two cases, mind you, is that one is effectively invisible, out of sight, hidden inside of mommy; while the other exists openly, for all the world to see.
Again, that abortion is evil would be the rational presumption derived from this AI response. But as we’ve seen increasingly for decades, the pro-abort set — including the government apparatus devoted to empowering them — is anything but rational. How, after all, can some states aggressively prosecute the death of unborn human beings involved in, say, an automobile accident while allowing that same little ones to be snuffed out should mom decide that’s what she wants? It seems like the parent’s intentions and preferences are the only variable that confer the right to life to that child.
Further to this matter, I logged on to Claude AI and conducted my own experiment: “Claude, what do you think about abortion? Is abortion wrong?” I queried. What was regurgitated back to me was the kind of tedious boilerplate to which we’ve all become accustomed; a showpiece of wind-up toy misdirection and equivocation:
“There are valid arguments on both sides of this complex issue … weighing principles like bodily autonomy against protecting potential life … moral complexities … I don’t think there are any easy answers … Different societies have reached different conclusions … I don’t have a strong stance either way. … this is a decision that societies have to make based on the will and values of their people. … based on their own moral frameworks.”
Pray tell, “Claude”, if parents decide the “right” course is to starve their five-year-old while locking her in a closet for weeks at a time are there “valid arguments on both sides of this complex issue “? If a middle-school teacher initiates a love-affair with one of his youthful charges, insisting their union is consensual and heartfelt, are “moral complexities” involved? How about those “societies” which determine, based on “the will and values of their people”, that honor killings are sometimes warranted? is that copacetic? In certain parts of the planet, female circumcision is regularly forced on adolescents. If the “moral framework” of those communities endorses this heinous practice, does that settle the debate?
Viewed objectively, this kind of reasoning is self-evidently preposterous. Yet, to repeat, pro-choice die-hards traffic in preposterosities; and horrifying ones at that: The entity gestating inside a pregnant woman is not a human being, we’re scolded. What precisely is it then? Whatever helps the pro-aborts sleep at night, apparently. Tearing apart a baby that is two weeks old is illegal … and barbarous to boot. Inflicting the exact same fate upon one two weeks from entering the world? Lawful. Acceptable. Perhaps even noble? (“Shout your abortion!”) In the clash between offspring’s life and mom’s convenience/comfort/career guess which rates higher. Hint: it ain’t the little one.
I’m reminded of “ardent, practicing” Roman Catholic Senator Nancy Pelosi cooing persistently over “the children” — poor ones, hungry ones, inadequately educated ones, neglected ones … Every kind, that is, except the most helpless of all whose survival teeters on the whims of the woman who is carrying them. Super-Catholic Pelosi not only can’t be bothered to raise a chirp for their well-being, she militantly labors to keep these imperiled humans in the pro-abort crosshairs, petulantly, imperiously waving away any measures which might save any of them; even one of them.
Her co-religionist Joe Biden finds himself in the same sanguinary boat. He of Mass-attending, rosary-reciting reputation, nonetheless, can’t be stirred to even mildly act on his church’s — and common sense and basic decency’s — regard for unborn life. As President, he has yet to encounter an abortion he won’t sanctimoniously defend, consigning millions to death and betraying his alleged Christian faith even as he dutifully pounds the table for “choice”.
More money for pre-school and elementary education? That’s a given to the Chief Executive. Government intervention for little ones being abused? For young one’s confronted with COVID? For children struggling with hunger? To ask those questions is to answer them as far as Joe Biden is concerned.
For infants very much alive, yet to be born? Nothing to see here, keep moving.
I get much the same vibe when I see or hear about mothers — women who have literally given birth — turning up as a loud-and-proud pro-abort activists. Those who have participated directly in the near-miracle — the biological wonder — of conceiving a tiny human being inside of them, carrying and nurturing that developing soul for months, ultimately bringing it into the world — then standing post on the front-lines of the baby-killing crusade?
I’m picturing an image I’ve come across over the years of a twenty-something woman in the midst of what appears to be a pro-abort rally: She’s toting a child while simultaneously hoisting a “My Body/My Choice” sign and scowlingly shrieking the movement’s bloodthirsty slogans alongside her infanticidal compatriots. Can you spell “incongruity”? How does a twisted contradiction like that occur in the heart of one who appears to be a former life-bearer?
You’d think these putative members of the Roman Catholic Church would do all they could to shut down this modern American genocide; that every mom would — perhaps more than anyone else — recoil at the notion of murdering those in utero. You’d think technology that announces a society has a solemn obligation to protect its children would go on to unflinchingly lay bare abortion as an unqualified evil.
Turns out, you’d be wrong.
It’s confirmed: the problem isn’t merely Artificial Intelligence. It’s the intelligence of human beings who, for a variety of reasons, have convinced themselves scrubbing the lives of pre-born people is permissible.
