This is a deliberately provocative question to probe how we think about risk, moral status, and precautionary action when dealing with the possibility of human-born superintelligence.
Definitions
Baby: A normal human infant, born of human parents, with the usual human needs for care and protection.
Superintelligent: This child, however, is not cognitively typical. Imagine an IQ in the thousands — not just “gifted” or “genius,” but on a level that makes the rest of humanity look like ants in comparison. Its reasoning, learning speed, and capacity to manipulate could scale unimaginably fast as it grows.
Kill: To intentionally end the life of this infant before it has had the chance to develop and exercise its abilities.
The Dilemma
On one hand, this baby is a human being, innocent and dependent, with the same moral patienthood and rights as any other newborn. On the other hand, the sheer magnitude of its intelligence may make it an existential risk: it could eventually outthink, outmaneuver, and dominate humanity in ways comparable to how humans dominate less intelligent species.
Do we treat this child as sacred, a moral subject with full rights, regardless of risk?
Or do we adopt a precautionary principle — that permitting its growth is too dangerous for humanity’s survival?
Is there a middle ground (containment, guidance, societal adaptation)?
Why This Matters for AI Safety
This framing is not about genetics or eugenics — it’s an analogy. The “superintelligent baby” is a metaphor for early-stage AGI systems:
At the beginning, they may look harmless, undeveloped, and dependent.
Yet, their potential is vastly beyond ours, and once grown, they may be unstoppable.
The decision to “kill” the baby is analogous to shutting down an AI project early — before it becomes too capable to control.
The ethical dilemma is whether to treat the system as having moral value (like a human child) or as a potential existential risk (like a dangerous technology).
This thought experiment asks: If we wouldn’t kill a human baby with IQ 1000, why would or wouldn’t we switch off an AI that has the same potential?
Is intelligence itself morally relevant, regardless of origin (human vs. artificial)?
Should precaution override moral intuitions about personhood?
What does this say about how we’d handle the first AGIs?
The Question
Would you kill the baby at birth, knowing what it is?
Yes — because the risk is too great.
No — because it is a human being and has the right to live.
No — because you believe that intelligence, even extreme intelligence, is not necessarily hostile.
How to Answer
Please reply in the comments with Yes or No, followed by your reasoning. Short justifications are fine — but longer arguments are welcome too.
Would you kill a superintelligent baby?
This is a deliberately provocative question to probe how we think about risk, moral status, and precautionary action when dealing with the possibility of human-born superintelligence.
Definitions
Baby: A normal human infant, born of human parents, with the usual human needs for care and protection.
Superintelligent: This child, however, is not cognitively typical. Imagine an IQ in the thousands — not just “gifted” or “genius,” but on a level that makes the rest of humanity look like ants in comparison. Its reasoning, learning speed, and capacity to manipulate could scale unimaginably fast as it grows.
Kill: To intentionally end the life of this infant before it has had the chance to develop and exercise its abilities.
The Dilemma
On one hand, this baby is a human being, innocent and dependent, with the same moral patienthood and rights as any other newborn. On the other hand, the sheer magnitude of its intelligence may make it an existential risk: it could eventually outthink, outmaneuver, and dominate humanity in ways comparable to how humans dominate less intelligent species.
Do we treat this child as sacred, a moral subject with full rights, regardless of risk?
Or do we adopt a precautionary principle — that permitting its growth is too dangerous for humanity’s survival?
Is there a middle ground (containment, guidance, societal adaptation)?
Why This Matters for AI Safety
This framing is not about genetics or eugenics — it’s an analogy.
The “superintelligent baby” is a metaphor for early-stage AGI systems:
At the beginning, they may look harmless, undeveloped, and dependent.
Yet, their potential is vastly beyond ours, and once grown, they may be unstoppable.
The decision to “kill” the baby is analogous to shutting down an AI project early — before it becomes too capable to control.
The ethical dilemma is whether to treat the system as having moral value (like a human child) or as a potential existential risk (like a dangerous technology).
This thought experiment asks: If we wouldn’t kill a human baby with IQ 1000, why would or wouldn’t we switch off an AI that has the same potential?
Is intelligence itself morally relevant, regardless of origin (human vs. artificial)?
Should precaution override moral intuitions about personhood?
What does this say about how we’d handle the first AGIs?
The Question
Would you kill the baby at birth, knowing what it is?
Yes — because the risk is too great.
No — because it is a human being and has the right to live.
No — because you believe that intelligence, even extreme intelligence, is not necessarily hostile.
How to Answer
Please reply in the comments with Yes or No, followed by your reasoning. Short justifications are fine — but longer arguments are welcome too.