Does anyone know the provenance of this story? One comment says, responding to someone who recommends publishing it,
> The problem is that it's published so he can sell only second rights.
EDIT: The story is tagged (at the top) "fiction, raikoth". Raikoth is the 'constructed civilization' of Scott Alexander, author of Slate Star Codex, et al. And though the post is at gwern.net, I see the author is "Scott".
Based on your comments I think you do understand it but are taking it too seriously / too literally.
Consider the title: Scott Alexander and others have written more clear, philosophically robust versions of a similar argument ("you shouldn't trade your agency for good outcomes").
But that's not the point here. This is the artsy version that's supposed to make you feel the argument.
One of the more compelling (and scary) stories about how AI takes over the world. If you liked this, also check our Pluribus.
I suppose the earring never whispered anything about putting glue on pizza?
(2012)
Also here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131230055512/http://squid314.l...
Does anyone know the provenance of this story? One comment says, responding to someone who recommends publishing it,
> The problem is that it's published so he can sell only second rights.
EDIT: The story is tagged (at the top) "fiction, raikoth". Raikoth is the 'constructed civilization' of Scott Alexander, author of Slate Star Codex, et al. And though the post is at gwern.net, I see the author is "Scott".
What do you mean the provenance? It was published on livejournal in 2012, that’s the provenance.
Yep, Scott (squid314) used livejournal before SlateStarCodex, before AstralCodexTen.
This came up the other day, can someone help explain this to me? I am not quite sharp enough to understand it. Context:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48911884
Seems like a fairly direct parable against AI, suggesting that even if it's right it's better to think for yourself.
You mean like LLM AI? Seems a little too early for that no?
Either way, what is it right about? In your mind?
Based on your comments I think you do understand it but are taking it too seriously / too literally.
Consider the title: Scott Alexander and others have written more clear, philosophically robust versions of a similar argument ("you shouldn't trade your agency for good outcomes").
But that's not the point here. This is the artsy version that's supposed to make you feel the argument.