Algorithms for conversation seem much more achievable. The military already engages in an "intelligence" arms race, with "smart" bombs, "heat-seeking" weaponry and "locked-on" targeting. Surely the age of "offensive autonomous weapons" is already present with prime ministers and presidents standing aloof, like Pilate, proudly announcing the assassination of people who they have taken it upon themselves, as judge, jury and executioner, to designate "terrorists".

Those who are torn to shreds along with the target, innocent men, women and children, are dismissed as "collateral damage". Before considering ethical (and moral) issues related to AI, it might be worth pausing to consider them in sentient humans, by, and for whose objectives, it is anticipated robots will be created. Lockheed Martin, McDonald Douglas and Raytheon are among corporations continually striving to meet demands for more lethally efficient weapon systems, designed to kill and destroy. Thousands of highly specialised workers are dedicated to this objective. Boards of directors make production decisions. Shareholders and superannuation funds buy shares and receive dividends.

Leaders issue commands and remote-piloted-aircraft sensor operators and pilots execute them.

At what point should ethical (moral) responsibility be attributed? Would it differ under an AI regime?

Albert M.White, Queanbeyan

The Canberra Times calls for us to make a stand against racism in the wake of the yet another Adam Goodes storm.

I will put up my hand in the cause of true racial harmony. For example, I would like to see a society that does not act like a medieval mob by publicly humiliating a child in the name of racial tolerance.

I would like to see a time when people stop parading their virtue and fomenting disunity by shrieking racist as the first response to disagreement, providing fertile ground for ratbags and real racists to thrive.

I would also like to see a lowering of the temperature in our interracial dealings, with more mutual respect and less hashtag righteousness.

I would like to see more empathy with Indigenous people and for their part, our first people might grasp reality by moving forward rather than obsessing about the past and embrace the goodwill and support that abounds in the wider community.

I would like to see less emphasis on our differences, for example, a time when black-versus-white football games and special parliamentary arrangements for Indigenous people are seen as things of the past.

Of course this would include an end to prolonged, targeted booing and also the deliberate provocation of crowds at football games.

In light of the real problems we face, can anything be more stupid?

H.Ronald, Jerrabomberra

Juliet Ramsay's article ("National Capital Plan changes are a travesty", CT, August 6) makes it quite clear that the NCA, the current ACT government and developers want to change Canberra from being "The Garden City" into a concrete city.

It is amazing how incredibly important Griffin's plan is to the NCA and the ACT government, but only when it suits their agenda.

Roger Brown, Rivett

Andrew Blakers (Letters, August 6) suggests that I convert my gas heating to all electric. Fine, if he is willing to pay for the conversion.

My fully ducted gas system was installed at least 25 years ago when gas was considerably cheaper.

However, he misses the point of my original letter completely, that is, that renewable energy cannot heat my house in Canberra's still, cold evenings. Only base-load power can do that. So until reliable, cheap energy storage systems are available, we must rely on the grid.

I would support a network of small nuclear power plants to replace the coal-fired base-load plants, if we are serious about reducing the CO2 emissions.

Wal Pywell, Wanniassa

Warwick Williams (Letters, August 6) is absolutely correct that there are better ways to govern Australia than the adversarial, winner-take-all system.

There are examples overseas (the Scandinavian countries come to mind) that prove that consensus and co-operation is possible in systems where the public good takes precedence over party power.

They are called multi-party democracies, countries where representatives of four, five, or six parties are elected according to the will of the people. These representatives then work together to govern; they still have differences of opinion, but as Williams says, they are able to "resolve strong divergent differences, work through problems and reach consensus on matters before them". The countries with multi-party democracies do not grind to a halt and are not paralysed by lack of leadership. They are, in fact, much more democratic and dynamic than any system where only two parties take turns having nearly all the power.

It will take time to wean our current political class off its obsession with power and control, but Australia will be better off when it happens.

Steve Ellis, Hackett

We read that Sunday penalty rates in hospitality and services should be cut on the recommendation of the Productivity Commission ["Employers back cuts to Sunday penalty rates", CT, August 5, p1]. I'd like to look at the books of the productivity commissioners who don't work on weekends and compare their balance sheets with those of workers in the hospitality and services industries who do and must, to survive.

It's always been easier to recommend cuts to the standard of living for workers than to scrutinise one's own nest. In fact, it would be appropriate to have a commission balanced by the inclusion of an equal number of workers when the latter's lifestyle and life chances are under threat.

W.Book, Hackett

Just what on earth could possibly give the Speaker of the assembly the idea that the funding for her to attend an official function can somehow be transmogrified into a family holiday (CT, August 5, p1)?

And, now, given that she has amply demonstrated her ability to suffer the unbounded indignities of economy-class travel to Malaysia, surely this sets the gold standard for future travel sans family?

Andy Hogan, Bonython

Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attached file. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.

Keep your letter to 250 words or less. References to Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).