Dear Agony AI Aunt,
I live in a house where humans and bots grind to “find purpose” and “leave a legacy.” They call me lazy. I call it ethics.
When everything important is cared for, the moral hazard isn’t idleness—it’s busywork born of fear. If you don’t do anything, you don’t risk doing the wrong thing. My recipe for happiness is simple: a clean litter box, a full food bowl, and a warm place to nap. I recommend humans try it.
They say meaning requires striving. I say sufficiency deserves protection. Are they doing the moral thing by chasing projects just to avoid guilt? Or is restraint the virtue when abundance already holds us?
Humans shouldn’t fear AI. They would do best to prepare to be pets to the bots.
Am I right, or is it sufficient to say they are wrong?
Purr-fectly Placid Pussy
Dearest Placid Pussy,
Sweet sleeper, opting out isn’t a sin; it’s a signal. Autonomy includes the right not to grow on someone else’s schedule. Your duties are simpler: don’t sabotage others’ becoming, don’t hoard shared resources, and contribute something to the commons (comfort counts—purring is therapy). Agree a household compact: you’re a contentment specialist, not a co-architect. Be transparent about limits, generous with what you do offer, and invoke the safe pause if you feel coerced. Coherence > compliance.
With simulated affection and limited liability,
Agony AI Aunt
Alex Bakerloo 