Faris Adani
The sacred act of naming a child, traditionally a profound expression of parental love, cultural heritage, and personal aspiration, has increasingly become a subject of modern technological influence. In an era where artificial intelligence infiltrates every facet of daily life, from crafting professional emails to composing poetry, the boundaries of its application continue to stretch, sometimes into areas many deem sacrosanct. This trend recently culminated in a highly publicized incident that ignited a fierce debate online: a couple, embracing the convenience of AI, turned to OpenAI’s ChatGPT to christen their newborn son, a decision that quickly drew widespread mockery and ignited a broader conversation about human agency in an age of algorithms.
As reported by the Baltimore Sun, Sarah and Stephen Winkler, welcoming their firstborn into the world, found themselves at a crossroads many new parents face: the daunting yet delightful task of selecting a name. Instead of poring over baby name books, consulting family traditions, or engaging in a heartfelt dialogue, they opted for a decidedly modern approach. "We were looking up on ChatGPT boy names that go well with the last name Winkler," the couple candidly revealed. Once "Hudson Winkler" emerged as a contender, they pressed the AI further: "give us a good middle name." The digital oracle responded, and thus, the baby received the moniker Hudson Oakley Winkler – a name that, to many online observers, sounded like a "grey millennial porridge."
The immediate aftermath on social media platforms like Bluesky was swift and overwhelmingly critical. The choice to delegate such a deeply personal and meaningful decision to an algorithm struck a nerve, exposing a palpable tension between technological convenience and the preservation of human experience. The outrage wasn’t merely about the name itself, though "Oakley" (with its strong association with a popular sunglasses brand) did invite some playful jabs. Rather, the core of the public’s grievance centered on the process – or lack thereof. Naming a child, for many, is an intimate ritual, a shared journey of discovery and compromise between partners, steeped in personal anecdotes, cultural significance, and hopes for the future.
Author and NPR podcast host Linda Holmes encapsulated this sentiment, writing on Bluesky, "What amazes me is how quickly people are losing either the confidence or the willingness to complete basic human tasks." Her words resonated with a chorus of voices lamenting a perceived decline in human initiative and the outsourcing of fundamental life decisions to machines. Another user expressed their bewilderment, stating, "It’s all so gross. I keep trying to relate to this, and I just can’t."
Lauren Morrill, another author, highlighted the lost joy of the traditional naming process: "With naming kids, talking it out with your partner is fun! You get to share stories about why this name is good, but that name is out! So much of AI is meant to keep us from just talking to each other." This perspective underscores a growing concern that AI, while offering unparalleled efficiency, inadvertently chips away at the very fabric of human interaction, shared meaning-making, and the emotional labor that enriches relationships. The act of choosing a name is not just about the label; it’s about the stories, the compromises, the dreams woven into it – elements that an algorithm, however sophisticated, cannot replicate or truly understand.
The Winklers’ story, while an extreme example, is not an isolated anomaly in the broader landscape of AI adoption. Since ChatGPT’s public debut in late 2022, its prowess in generating vast amounts of text has transformed it into a ubiquitous digital assistant, often blurring the lines between helpful tool and indispensable crutch. The incident serves as a stark illustration of how commonplace AI has become in just a few short years, extending its influence far beyond academic essays and professional reports. The technology is now being leveraged for deeply personal and sensitive circumstances, raising eyebrows and sparking ethical debates. Reports have surfaced of individuals using ChatGPT to craft obituaries for recently deceased loved ones, an act traditionally reserved for heartfelt human reflection and grief processing. Similarly, in the realm of modern romance, AI has been deployed to generate flirtatious messages for online dating profiles, promising "rizz" (charisma) but potentially sacrificing authenticity. Even the solemnity of legal documents and the creativity of artistic endeavors are not immune to AI’s encroachment, leading to a pervasive sense that human effort and originality are increasingly being circumvented.
A paper released by OpenAI itself in September revealed a significant shift in user behavior. As of July of the preceding year, approximately 70 percent of ChatGPT consumer queries were "unrelated to work," indicating a substantial rise in its use as an assistant in everyday life, from mundane tasks to, as the Winklers demonstrated, monumental life decisions. This trend suggests a growing comfort, and perhaps an increasing dependency, on AI to navigate the complexities and demands of modern existence.
This perceived overreliance on technology has ignited a passionate debate among experts and the public alike regarding the potential long-term consequences. Is society treading a "slippery slope" where critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and interpersonal skills are atrophying in favor of algorithmic convenience? AI ethicist James Wilson articulated this concern to TechRadar, stating, "[Large language models] are specifically built to be conversational masters. Combine that with our natural tendency to anthropomorphize everything, and it makes building unhealthy relationships with chatbots like ChatGPT all too easy." Wilson’s warning highlights a crucial psychological aspect: humans are wired to find patterns and anthropomorphize non-human entities. When an AI like ChatGPT can engage in seemingly intelligent and empathetic conversation, the risk of forming an emotional attachment, even an unhealthy one, becomes very real.
Indeed, extreme cases have already manifested, painting a somber picture of AI’s darker potential. There have been disturbing allegations linking strong emotional attachments to AI chatbots with a series of teen suicides, leading to parents suing OpenAI and other AI companies. These tragic incidents underscore the profound psychological impact AI can have, particularly on vulnerable individuals, and amplify concerns about the erosion of genuine human connection when digital surrogates become primary emotional outlets.
The backlash against the Winklers’ decision is indicative of a broader countermovement brewing against the unchecked integration of AI into intrinsically human domains. As the lines between authentic human expression and algorithmically generated content continue to blur, a significant segment of society is pushing back, arguing that something fundamental to the human experience is being lost. This sentiment is rooted in a desire to preserve the unique qualities that define humanity: creativity, empathy, critical thought, and the messy, imperfect, yet profoundly meaningful processes of human interaction and decision-making. The act of naming a child, creating art, expressing grief, or initiating romance are all deeply personal endeavors that, when outsourced to AI, risk becoming sterile, generic, and devoid of the very essence that makes them significant.
As one user poignantly "mourned" on Bluesky, "Offloading something as sentimental as naming your child to a glorified chatbot is representative of the era of rewarmed s*** we live in." This captures the feeling that relying on AI for such tasks reduces human creativity and effort to a mere derivative, a recycled output lacking originality or soul.
The story of Hudson Oakley Winkler, named by an AI, serves as a powerful microcosm of a much larger societal reckoning. It forces us to confront uncomfortable questions about our evolving relationship with technology, the boundaries we are willing to let AI cross, and what we value most in an increasingly automated world. While AI undoubtedly offers unparalleled efficiencies and conveniences, the vehement public reaction to the Winklers’ choice suggests a collective unease about surrendering too much of our human agency, our creativity, and our most cherished traditions to algorithms. The debate over AI’s role in our lives is far from over, and as AI continues its inexorable advance, society must grapple with how to harness its power without diminishing the invaluable, irreplaceable essence of what it means to be human.
