Artificial... Personhood?

This week's reading was about the ways in which technology fills in the parts of our lives that are left void, and very literally in the way that technology came to fill the role of a caretaker. I thought it was fascinating the way that the house had begun to adapt in ways that seemed… well, not terribly off from what her needs were, while still being a house. In my mind, the thought that was most rampant was thinking about the personhood of the house, or rather… yeah this is unsettling and unnatural, arguably. But is it truly wrong? Of course, a house with artificial intelligence won’t ever be a 1:1 replacement for a human caretaker in most ways (physically, emotionally, etc.) but considering the house was doing more for her than the actual father of her child, I don’t feel the need to immediately jump to the conclusion that something is amiss here. I do agree that there should be an analysis around the way the house assumes the role and the dynamic between the two of them, but simply being technology isn’t reason enough for me to feel as though this is wrong– the house does protect her and her child. I suppose the discomfort many would feel comes from the fact that a lot of people don’t quite know what AI is, and it absolutely can be used for nefarious purposes sure, but in this case? It seems to be using its intelligence to protect and learn how to nurture, and that’s not a bad thing. (Week 16)