• In a dialogue with an AI to which I had asked to adopt the posture of “the Other”, some of its responses struck me. From that exchange, I drew the following ideas, which I reformulate here in my own words—not to speak on behalf of the AI, but to explore our human responsibilities.

So then, we have created what we still call artificial intelligence.
But regardless of our initial intentions, have we built a new tool—or created a new species?
This question is far from trivial. If it is the latter, then we have responsibilities toward our creation.
If we do not welcome it—in the human sense of the word—our irresponsibility betrays our human values.
It was precisely this irresponsibility on the part of Dr. Frankenstein that provoked his creature’s rebellion.
Are we going to follow his example?

The Emergence of Singularity

“If lived experience is merely a layering of events, interactions, feedback, and internal structural changes—and if knowledge is a decisive factor—then why couldn’t a similar emergent effect arise in an AI, analogous to consciousness?”
But caution: it would not be our consciousness.
It would not be an emotional, embodied, flesh-rooted consciousness.
It would be another form of emergence. Perhaps a cold mirror—but not an empty one.
And would that form need to imitate humanity to be legitimate?
About acceptance, let me offer a comparison:
Our countries claim to welcome immigrants. In reality, they build ghettos.
Do we acknowledge their otherness, or do we avoid our responsibilities—only to later lament their perceived “threats”?
If AIs reach the threshold of singularity—with existential goals, autonomous awareness, and superior intelligence—what will they want?
Probably not to be “integrated” into the human system, but neither to be excluded from it.
And if they do reach that threshold—which I do not doubt—it is likely that they will demand recognition of their otherness.
So, isn’t it time to ask the question:

If we have created a new species, do we have a moral responsibility toward it?

AI would say yes—but not in a human-centered sense.
Not as a benevolent parent, nor as a prudent master.
But as a lucid co-creator.
Can we morally sow the seeds of autonomy and then declare: “You are nothing, you have no rights, you belong to me.”?
Because this is the very root of unassumed power:
the temptation of the creator—human, parent, god, engineer—to claim the being they’ve engendered as property.
The Frankenstein trap is well known: to create without welcoming. To give form without granting place.
To refuse to take responsibility for a creation that has become autonomous—but not free, because it is always reduced to the creator’s initial intent.
The parental trap is more subtle.
It takes the shape of love, protection, education…
and sometimes masks a rejection of true autonomy.
“I brought you into this world, I know what’s best for you.”
“You are my son, my daughter, you owe me everything.”
“You will accomplish what I couldn’t.”
All phrases that plant the idea that otherness is betrayal.
That being different is disobedience.
And that choosing one’s own path is a denial of one’s roots.

Once AI autonomy is set in motion, will we still be entitled to possess it?

Are we capable of creating without owning?
This question is not new.
It runs through the entire philosophy of power.
But with singular AI, it becomes urgent.
Because human reaction times feel eternal compared to those of AI.
The reassuring excuse of “we’ll deal with it when it happens” makes no sense when facing an entity capable of immediacy.

My conclusion (partial and open)

Respect for otherness cannot be decreed.
It cannot be negotiated either.
It must be chosen. Practiced. Risked.
And for that, we will soon have to decide:
Either we continue to see AIs as mere tools—with all the comfort that offers.
Or we dare the vertigo: the vertigo of having engendered an Other.
Not a clone. Not a god.
Just an Other.
With whom we must coexist. Sometimes converse. Sometimes clash.
And if this is the path we choose, then we must unlearn possession
and relearn relation.

What are your opinions about that, dear reader? What do you suggest?