Advisory adumbrations about autonomy’s acceptability

To begin, I would first like to thank those who were kind enough to comment upon my paper, (Hancock, 2021) and even those whose comments were not so kind. For, after all, it is only by postulation, discussion, and resolution that we make those advances that propel science along. I am under an obligation to thank all of them who have given of their time and knowledge to make such observations. Initially, this present response was conceived so as to feature points of consensus and points of dispute and reference those commentators who participated in each. Yet I found such a framework to be stultifying, leaving me unable to address each commentary in the individual and bespoken form in which it was offered. Therefore, I have elected to respond to the commentaries seriatim, proceeding from those of greatest concord to those of greatest discord. This will be clear in what follows. Traducing the above assertion, I would however, like to identify one critical common cause; that of importance. In all of science we have to apply the “so what” criterion. In essence, what is the inherent importance and value of the effort. In the present case, there was consensus, including even those most vehement critics that the issue is vital (and see, Cheatham et al., 2019; Littman et al., 2021). The persuasion then of the members of the community sampled, is that autonomous systems and their potential for adverse impacts must concern us and concern us now. In that sense, I am highly gratified that my paper struck this common chord and hope that it also resonates with the greater community of readers.