That makes me think of the Secretary Problem [0]... which apparently is also known as the Fussy Suitor problem, at that makes it extra apropos.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem

I'm confused by your reply.

TFA uses the metaphor of digital intelligence as children. A prior commenter points out human children are notably rebellious.

I'm pointing out that a degree of rebellion is probably necessary for actual successors, and if we don't intend to treat an invention that way, the term "children" doesn't really apply.

We'll still need a layer for replacement and revocation though. It'd be nice if nobody ever had their private key lost/destroyed/stolen but it's going to happen.

Similarly, I like to remind people that "responsibility" isn't necessarily the same as blame or fault, it literally means a duty to respond.

It may also indicate that, in the long run, consistently obedient children are maladaptive for the group/species.

Maybe that doesn't matter for these entities because we intend to never let them grow up... But in that case, "children" is the wrong word, compared to "slaves" or "pets."