The philosopher’s machine: my conversation with Peter Singer’s AI chatbot; The Guardian, April 17, 2025

Stephanie Convery , The Guardian; The philosopher’s machine: my conversation with Peter Singer’s AI chatbot

"Singer has had a long and high-profile career in philosophy. He has only recently retired from Princeton University, where he was professor of bioethics. His CV is extensive (it runs to a full 102 pages). He has a Substack, a podcast, a Bluesky account, a journal he co-edits, and a polished online presence. As I’m scrolling through the storied septuagenarian philosopher’s blog, the chatbot pops up in the corner of the page. I can’t help but feeling like I am being sold something.

In launching his chatbot, Singer described the tool as “employing the Socratic method” – that is, dialogue – to “[guide] users through a process of critical thinking and self-examination”. But I have questions about that.

Me: Do you think it is philosophically justifiable to outsource the discussion of ethics to a chatbot?

Peter Singer AI: Outsourcing ethical discussions to a chatbot can be philosophically justifiable if viewed as a tool to enhance and facilitate ethical reflection. Chatbots can provide insights, pose questions, and offer perspectives that might help individuals think more deeply about ethical issues.

However, it’s crucial to remember that chatbots lack human experience, empathy, and the ability to understand context fully. They should be used as a complement to human judgment and conversation, not a replacement.

Engaging with a chatbot can stimulate thinking and provide a starting point for deeper exploration, but ultimately, ethical decision-making involves personal reflection and discussion with others...

My most memorable and exciting philosophy lessons were the ones in which, as a class, we hotly debated ideas in which we were all materially and emotionally invested. The AI floats loftily above the emotional fray, coolly dispensing pre-programmed wisdom from the cloud, while we grapple with the contradictions and complications of actually living. Between the chatbot and me, there is only one of us for whom the dialogue elicits an emotional response, because for only one of us does the conversation actually matter."

‘Ethics in the Real World,’ Peter Singer’s Provocative Essays; Book Review by Dwight Garner, New York Times, 12/19/16

Book Review by Dwight Garner, New York Times; ‘Ethics in the Real World,’ Peter Singer’s Provocative Essays:

[Update 12/21/16: I was able to locate and buy this afternoon a copy of Ethics in the Real World (2016), a collection of 82 essays by Peter Singer, at a Barnes & Noble at Settler's Ridge in suburban Pittsburgh. The 4-page essay "Rights for Robots?" was written by Peter Singer (with Agata Sagan). Though this essay was written in 2009, the ethical issues it raises about robots seem even more timely and relevant today.]

[Kip Currier: Just read the New York Times review (excerpted below) of Princeton University philosopher Peter Singer's new book “Ethics in the Real World: 82 Brief Essays on Things That Matter" and was intrigued by some of the chapter titles, like "Rights for Robots?" Unfortunately, the Barnes & Noble near me is holding their only print copy for another customer. But I'll pick up a copy elsewhere this week and look forward to checking it out.]

In his new book, “Ethics in the Real World: 82 Brief Essays on Things That Matter,” Mr. Singer picks up the topics of animal rights and poverty amelioration and runs quite far with them. But he’s written better and more fully about these issues elsewhere; they are not the primary reason to come to this book.

“Ethics in the Real World” comprises short pieces, most of them previously published. This book is interesting because it offers a chance to witness this influential thinker grapple with more offbeat questions.

Among the essay titles here: “Should Adult Sibling Incest Be a Crime?”; “Is It O.K. to Cheat at Football?”; “Tiger Mothers or Elephant Mothers?”; “Rights for Robots?”; and “Kidneys for Sale?” This book is the equivalent of a moral news conference, or a particularly good Terry Gross interview."