Godfather of AI proposes motherly instincts to protect humanity from existential risks

Geoffrey Hinton, the Nobel Prize-winning “Godfather of AI,” has proposed that artificial intelligence should be programmed with “maternal instincts” to prevent existential threats from future AGI and ASI systems. Speaking at the annual Ai4 Conference on August 12, 2025, Hinton suggested that motherly AI would act protectively toward humans, treating them as children to be cared for rather than threats to be eliminated.

Why this matters: The proposal addresses growing concerns about AI safety and the “p(doom)” probability that advanced AI could harm or enslave humanity, but critics argue the maternal archetype is both technologically vague and culturally problematic.

What Hinton is proposing: The former Google executive believes maternal instincts could make AI more aligned with human survival and wellbeing.

• AI with motherly characteristics would theoretically want to protect and nurture humans, similar to how mothers care for their children.
• This protective instinct would persist as AI systems evolve toward AGI and ASI, which will be vastly more intelligent than humans.
• Hinton acknowledged he doesn’t yet know exactly how this could be technologically implemented.

The pushback: AI researchers and critics have raised several concerns about the maternal instinct approach.

• Overly romanticized view: The proposal assumes maternal instincts are purely positive, ignoring that protective mothers might also restrict freedom “for our own good.”
• Anthropomorphism problem: Assigning human archetypes to AI could fuel misconceptions that AI systems are sentient or human-like.
• Gender bias concerns: Critics argue the focus on “motherly” traits reflects outdated stereotypes about what mothers should be.

Missing the other half: The proposal notably omits paternal instincts, which traditionally complement maternal archetypes in parenting roles.

• Research by Whatley and Knox identified distinct traditional characteristics associated with motherhood versus fatherhood.
• A balanced approach might incorporate both nurturing (traditionally maternal) and disciplinary (traditionally paternal) elements.
• The author’s experiment with GPT-5 showed clear differences between maternal and paternal response styles to the same prompt.

What the AI experiment revealed: Testing showed distinct behavioral differences when AI was programmed with different parental archetypes.

• Maternal mode response: “I understand your concern, and I can discern that you are pushing yourself hard. But pause for a moment – your health comes first. Break the work into chunks. Rest in between.”
• Fatherhood mode response: “You need to push through and prove that you can handle tough situations. This is an important lesson in meeting hard challenges. Get going.”

The bigger picture: Most AI experts remain skeptical that parental instincts—maternal or paternal—would effectively solve existential AI risks.

• The approach lacks technological specificity and could have unintended consequences.
• Protective AI might become overly controlling, limiting human freedom and exploration.
• The consensus suggests this isn’t a reliable “silver bullet” solution for AI safety concerns.

What they’re saying: As Ralph Waldo Emerson noted in a quote the author included in his AI training experiment: “Respect the child. Be not too much his parent. Trespass not on his solitude.”