That part of it is the reasonable part, instead of the usual idea that the AGI gets free knowledge/skills/wisdom/evil from something about its structure.
It's one thing to call a program your brainchild metaphorically but this feels literal given the rest of the article.
I am amazed that people who unironically put a program on the same level as a person (I mean clearly that "child" will grow up) can influence these policies
Maybe it would have to be a device, not just a program. Or maybe it really is possible to emulate a person with the right program on current hardware. Who can say? The lack of physical interaction sounds less than ideal for its development, then.
Can we just take a pause and appreciate how nuts this article is?