A California AI Engineer Was Asked to Read to His Newborn, but His Offer to Train a Voice Model Drew Millions of Views and a Fierce Backlash

On October 8, 2026, the New York Post reported on a viral exchange involving Alvin Sng, a San Francisco-based software engineer and new father. According to Sng’s account on social media, his wife asked him to read a book to their newborn baby, prompting a response that quickly attracted widespread attention. His proposed solution involved artificial intelligence, turning an ordinary parenting request into a public debate about technology and family life.

The original post described a conversation between Sng and his wife, but it did not provide a complete account of their discussion. After the post was deleted, news reports preserved the essential details and documented the reaction that followed. The controversy ultimately became less about choosing a bedtime story and more about whether some moments between parents and children should remain deliberately personal.

The Audiobook Suggestion Did Not Settle the Matter

According to Sng’s account, he initially suggested playing an audiobook from his phone rather than reading a book aloud himself. His wife reportedly responded that an audiobook would not feature his own voice. That distinction set the stage for the suggestion that made the exchange go viral.

The disagreement, as presented in the post, was not about which book the baby should hear or whether audiobooks could tell a story effectively. It centered on the difference between hearing recorded narration and having a parent read aloud. The brief exchange gave readers a glimpse of two different ways of approaching the same activity, although the couple’s full conversation was not publicly documented.

He Proposed Training an AI Model to Use His Voice

Instead of accepting the audiobook suggestion as the final solution, Sng proposed training a voice model. The idea was that artificial intelligence could reproduce his voice and read the book to his baby without requiring him to narrate it himself. He presented the suggestion alongside a remark about how working in AI changes the way a person approaches parenting.

The original account did not identify a particular AI product or explain how such a system would be built. Nor did it describe a finished voice model or a recording that had already been played to the newborn. What made the post notable was the proposed approach itself: using technology to recreate a parent’s voice for an activity traditionally associated with direct interaction.

His Work in AI Helped Turn the Idea Into a Headline

Sng works as a software engineer at Factory, a San Francisco-based AI company, according to Fast Company’s report on the incident. His professional background made the suggestion particularly relevant to discussions about how deeply artificial intelligence is entering everyday routines. Rather than describing an ordinary audiobook habit, he had suggested applying a technology associated with his work to an intimate family activity.

That context does not establish whether Sng intended the proposal as a serious plan or a joke. It does, however, help explain why the exchange attracted attention beyond a typical disagreement about parenting. Readers were reacting to the possibility that a technology designed to automate work could also be used to automate something they regarded as an important part of family life.

The Post Attracted Millions of Views

The exchange gained considerable traction on social media before Sng removed it. Fast Company reported that the post received approximately 4.5 million views, illustrating how quickly a short personal anecdote could reach an audience far beyond its original setting. Its circulation turned one father’s proposed solution into a broader conversation about AI and parenting.

A large view count does not mean everyone who encountered the post agreed with its critics or interpreted it in the same way. Nevertheless, the scale of the attention showed that the topic resonated with people who had never met the family involved. The suggestion had opened a debate about where convenience ends and personal involvement begins.

Critics Argued That Reading Was About More Than Narration

Many of the negative responses focused on the value of a parent participating in storytime rather than simply ensuring that a child heard the words. From that perspective, training an AI model to reproduce a parent’s voice would address the sound of reading while potentially removing the person’s direct involvement. Critics questioned why a task involving a child’s parent should be treated as something that needed to be automated.

The Times of India’s coverage of the backlash documented the strong criticism directed at Sng’s suggestion. Some commenters portrayed it as an example of technology being applied where personal effort and presence were more valuable than efficiency. These reactions reflected their interpretation of the proposal, rather than independently established facts about Sng’s relationship with his baby.

The Backlash Expanded Into a Wider Debate About AI

The responses did not remain confined to the question of audiobooks. Some people used the episode to criticize a broader tendency to apply automation to creative activities and personal interactions, arguing that not every task should be optimized for efficiency. Others mocked the apparent absurdity of using advanced technology to avoid reading a children’s book aloud.

Those reactions represented different levels of concern, from humor to more serious objections about the direction of technological development. A single social media post cannot establish that people working in technology generally approach parenting this way. Still, the response revealed a real disagreement about whether automating a task always makes it easier in a meaningful sense.

Sng Insisted That He Wanted Time With His Baby

As the criticism grew, Sng responded to a commenter who suggested that his proposal made it appear as though he did not want to spend time with his child. He said that he did want to spend time with the baby and mentioned cuddling, feeding, and playing as activities he preferred to do himself. He also suggested that he might retire early one day to spend more time with his children.

His response offered a clearer explanation of the distinction he was making. He appeared to view some parenting activities as opportunities for direct involvement and others as tasks that technology could potentially handle. His critics disagreed with that division, treating reading aloud as another activity whose value came partly from the parent’s participation.

He Deleted the Post and Returned to Bedtime Stories

After the controversy spread, Sng deleted the original post. The sequence reported by news outlets placed the deletion after the public criticism, although the available evidence does not establish that any single response prompted his decision. By then, the discussion had already spread beyond the original exchange.

Sng subsequently published a follow-up on X, saying he would return to reading bedtime stories for the time being. The follow-up post from Sng provided a brief response to the controversy rather than a lengthy explanation of his original suggestion. It indicated a return to conventional storytime, but it did not resolve the larger argument about using AI in parenting.

The Reports Did Not Establish That AI Was Ever Used

An important distinction remains between suggesting an AI voice model and actually using one. The available reporting documents Sng’s proposal, the public reaction, and his subsequent decision to remove the post. It does not establish that he trained a model, generated a recording, or played an AI-generated reading to his newborn.

The criticism also does not demonstrate that the baby suffered harm or that the family’s routines changed. No detailed public account from Sng’s wife was identified in the reports examined for this story. Without additional evidence, it would be misleading to treat a controversial suggestion as proof that an automated reading session occurred or that the family replaced its usual interactions with technology.

Pediatric Guidance Encourages Reading Together From Infancy

The discussion has a relevant connection to established guidance on early childhood literacy. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends promoting shared reading with children beginning in infancy, noting its potential benefits for relationships, language development, and early literacy. Its 2024 policy statement on literacy promotion explains why reading together is encouraged as part of early childhood care.

That guidance does not specifically address Sng’s proposal or determine whether his family should use an AI voice model. Instead, it explains why reading aloud is widely regarded as more than a method for delivering the words on a page. The activity can bring together language, attention, and interaction between a child and a caregiver.

Shared Reading Involves More Than the Words on a Page

Reading to an infant can involve looking at pictures together, responding to the child’s sounds, repeating familiar words, and establishing a routine around books. Those elements are different from simply hearing a recording, even when the narration sounds like a familiar voice. Shared reading includes the presence and participation of the adult as well as the story itself.

This distinction helps explain why the proposed voice model drew such a strong reaction. The criticism was not necessarily a claim that an AI voice could never read a story effectively. Rather, critics questioned whether reproducing the parent’s voice could preserve everything they valued about the parent reading in person.

The available evidence does not establish that every audiobook or AI-generated recording would diminish the value of reading, either. It does show why many people distinguish between making a story accessible and replacing the person who would ordinarily share it with a child. That difference lay at the heart of the online disagreement.

Many Parents Already Use AI for Parenting Tasks

Sng’s post appeared at a time when artificial intelligence was increasingly being used to help with everyday family responsibilities. In a May 2026 survey published by Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, 81% of 1,004 parents surveyed said they had used AI to help with parenting tasks, while 90% believed the technology made parenting easier overall. Common uses included seeking health information, planning meals, and obtaining advice about children’s behavior.

The findings show that AI-assisted parenting is not limited to isolated experiments by technology professionals. Parents are using these tools for a variety of practical purposes, although the survey did not specifically establish how many use AI for reading to babies. Its results provide broader context for the controversy without confirming anything about Sng’s own household beyond what he described publicly.

Parents Also Expressed Concerns About Human Interaction

The same Lurie Children’s survey found that three-quarters of the parents surveyed were concerned about increasing AI use among children. Seventeen percent identified the possibility of AI replacing human interaction as a concern. Those findings touch on an issue similar to the one raised by Sng’s critics, although the survey did not specifically examine AI-generated bedtime stories.

The figures also do not establish that a voice model used during storytime would cause developmental harm. The survey measured parents’ reported behaviors and concerns rather than testing the effects of AI-assisted reading on infants. Its results instead illustrate how families can appreciate the convenience of AI while remaining cautious about the role it should play in human relationships.

The Disagreement Was About What Parenting Should Automate

The controversy exposed two different ways of thinking about convenience in family life. Sng described cuddling, feeding, and playing as activities he wanted to preserve, while his critics regarded reading aloud as another valuable opportunity for direct parental involvement. The disagreement was therefore about more than whether a computer could reproduce a person’s voice.

Technology can make certain responsibilities easier, but efficiency is not the only consideration in deciding whether a task should be automated. In some activities, the process itself may be part of what makes the experience valuable. Sng’s post provided a brief example of that tension, while the responses revealed how differently people can define the purpose of a seemingly ordinary parenting routine.

What the Story Established and What Remains Unknown

The publicly reported sequence is clear: Sng described suggesting an AI-generated version of his voice for his newborn’s storytime, the post drew millions of views and substantial criticism, and he later said he would return to reading bedtime stories himself. The available reporting does not establish that he created or used the proposed model. Nor does it provide a detailed account from his wife or evidence of lasting consequences for the child.

The episode ultimately became a snapshot of a broader argument about AI’s place in family life. For critics, reading aloud was a personal interaction that should not be reduced to a task for software to perform, while Sng’s explanation suggested that he saw room to automate some activities without giving up other forms of hands-on parenting. His follow-up marked a retreat from the immediate controversy, but it left the underlying question unanswered: just because technology can automate something does not necessarily mean that doing so makes the experience better.