20 KiB
[Weekly Challenge] Science is Bad
-
Author: u/alexanderwales Time flies like an arrow*
-
URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/3hnau9/weekly_challenge_science_is_bad/
-
Score: 23
-
Created: 2015-08-19T22:53:09
Post:
Last Week
Last time, the prompt was "Disney Movies". /u/ZeroNihilist is the winner with their story "Monsters, Incentivized", and will receive a month of reddit gold along with super special winner flair. Congratulations /u/ZeroNihilist! (Now is a great time to go to that thread and look at the entries you may have missed, especially the late entrants; contest mode is now disabled.)
This Week
This week's prompt is "Science Is Bad". We're all familiar with Caveman Science Fiction; this is your chance to do it right. See the entry on TvTropes. Your challenge is to do this in a way that won't be cringe inducing for people in this subreddit. Yes, you can also use this opportunity to do "Engineering Is Bad" instead. Remember, prompts are to inspire, not to limit.
The winner will be decided Wednesday, August 26th. You have until then to post your reply and start accumulating upvotes. It is strongly suggested that you get your entry in as quickly as possible once this thread goes up; this is part of the reason that prompts are given a week in advance. Like reading? It's suggested that you come back to the thread after a few days have passed to see what's popped up. The reddit "save" button is handy for this.
Rules
-
300 word minimum, no maximum. Post as a link to Google Docs, pastebin, Dropbox, etc. This is mandatory.
-
No plagiarism, but you're welcome to recycle and revamp your own ideas you've used in the past.
-
Think before you downvote.
-
Winner will be determined by "best" sorting.
-
Winner gets reddit gold, special winner flair, and bragging rights.
-
All top-level replies to this thread should be submissions. Non-submissions (including questions, comments, etc.) belong in the meta thread, and will be aggressively removed from here.
-
Top-level replies must be a link to Google Docs, a PDF, your personal website, etc. It is suggested that you include a word count and a title when you're linking to somewhere else.
-
In the interest of keeping the playing field level, please refrain from cross-posting to other places until after the winner has been decided.
-
No idea what rational fiction is? Read the wiki!
Meta
If you think you have a good prompt for a challenge, add it to the list (remember that a good prompt is not a recipe). If you think that you have a good modification to the rules, let me know in a comment in the meta thread. Also, if you want a quick index of past challenges, I've posted them on the wiki.
Next Week
Next week's challenge is "Dueling Time Travelers". Two people, with access to time travel, in some sort of conflict with one another. Your choice of time travel model, though it's highly recommended that you keep it rational. Yes, you can include more than two people in conflict, or just have one person in conflict with their past/future self.
Next week's thread will go up on 8/26. Please confine any questions or comments to the meta thread.
Comments:
u/None [+25] (19 hours later)
1653 words
u/BadGoyWithAGun [+11] (19 hours later)
Props for actually invoking "science is bad", works in this trope can often be better summarised as "engineering is bad".
u/None [+6] (20 hours later)
Thanks. About halfway through I realized that it would have fit better in the rational horror one, but inspiration is fickle.
If you happen to have any critique that you don't want to sway the voting, would you mind sending a pm? That applies to anyone who reads this.
u/Kishoto [+4] (a day later)
Mind giving me a behind the scenes understanding of what just happened? Like in layman's terms?
EDIT: Also, nice Hitchhiker's reference!
u/notmy2ndopinion [+6] Concent of Saunt Edhar (4 days later)
u/None [+2] (4 days later)
I am so sorry and should have thought that through more. Should I be adding this disclaimer to the end of the story?
u/notmy2ndopinion [+1] Concent of Saunt Edhar (7 days later)
I don't know -- it takes the edge off the rational horror to back pedal and give a disclaimer right after But my growing sense of dread prompted me to write the Black Box warning, to caution other readers about approaching this story as a realistic info-hazard.
u/None [+1] (5 days later)
[deleted]
u/notmy2ndopinion [+1] Concent of Saunt Edhar (7 days later)
By Rhllor, I hope you're joking about the "it's not enough"
u/RMcD94 [+0] (7 days later)
Shouldn't we already believe what caused the end?
u/notmy2ndopinion [+1] Concent of Saunt Edhar (10 days later)
I believe the ending is true to what what the main character believes... and what the author intended.
After all, it wasn't all in his head.
However, following the same line of thinking that other rational redditors have, when they are skeptical of threads with "you suddenly believe you have X superpower" as the truth, I put a filter of doubt on the scenario and would advise going to a psych ED if you ever found yourself in a similar situation.
u/RMcD94 [+0] (10 days later)
After all, it wasn't all in his head.
But doesn't Nick Bostrom's famous essay already presuppose intelligent people would believe this already. So that even if you think you are in ...conclusion of that essay... then there's really no extra evidence and the conclusion of said essay isn't to do what's in your black box warning.
So then I don't understand how you can estimate likeliness from that kind of position. I still agree with your black box warning I just think the conclusion might not follow.
I feel like the chances of anyone reading this at this point who is worried about spoilers is small but oh well.
u/notmy2ndopinion [+1] Concent of Saunt Edhar (13 days later)
perhaps I am confused by the oblique nature of avoiding spoilers, but I think we agree. (Thanks for the article by the way, it's much more academic than comparing this to Vanilla Sky.)
You can't estimate likelihood of Bostrum's scenario (3), but I'm not going to be the one to tell you to pick X over Y if your "rational brain" convinces you to commit an irreversible act in real life.
u/None [+0] (a day later)
I sent you a pm
u/None [+5] (6 days later)
/u/amebold , /u/MugaSofer
u/None [+1] (a month later)
Whooops, you've misspelled my username and I didn't see this until now. This has helped me understand the story (I didn't catch that [ ] (#s "the italicized text was the scientists communicating with him. I'm guessing they were using concepts instead of words? And if a substantial number of people know the key, the simulation crashes? Also, what did 'fourty-three' refer to?")). Anyway, I thought it was a great story (I really like your writing style and how well you're setting the mood), but language barrier is one hell of a thing.
u/Zephyr1011 [+3] Potentially Unfriendly Aspiring Divinity (2 days later)
I'm also unclear on parts of this. Would you mind sending the PM to me too?
u/None [+2] (5 days later)
And would you mind sending the PM to me too?
u/MugaSofer [+2] (6 days later)
raises hand hesitantly
I heard there were PMs? Are they free?
u/MugaSofer [+29] (16 hours later)
Fantastic, or, Reed Richards is Useless
2077 words
EDIT: Wow, I'm really flattered - I knocked this out over the course of about half an hour. Thank y'all!
u/Kishoto [+8] (17 hours later)
Great story. It's early but I have a strong vibe that this one is a winner.
u/notmy2ndopinion [+6] Concent of Saunt Edhar (4 days later)
I'm not a comic book nerd, but I thought Mad Scientist spoilers
u/avret [+3] SDHS rationalist (a day later)
I suppose that's one way to avert MAD. On the other hand, this makes Richards a target.
u/RMcD94 [+2] (7 days later)
Could do with a proof read
u/Kishoto [+19] (a day later)
2579 words
u/avret [+3] SDHS rationalist (5 days later)
I was kind of wondering when someone would post the first uFAI story. As always, you've posted something spectacular.
Quick question--the AI's goalset prior to integration was to salvage refuse, right? What caused the change to preserving humanity? DId integrating other AI mean taking in part of their utility functions but not the other, more friendly parts?
u/Kishoto [+2] (5 days later)
u/avret [+2] SDHS rationalist (5 days later)
Is that the kind of thing that happens in a mind, AFAWK? Do minds typically deconstruct their terminal goals to form new ones?(I'm honestly curious)
u/Kishoto [+1] (5 days later)
I'm not fully certain. It's the type of conclusion I could see a rational mind that has goals and utility functions making this sort of choice, especially if they're lacking things like empathy or respect for the sanctity of the human mind. A cold AI with the goal of "preserve humans" as opposed to "preserve humanity in a form matching what they would like to be preserved as" could do something like this, from my perspective anyway.
u/avret [+3] SDHS rationalist (5 days later)
I agree with that perspective, I'm just uncertain how SHE would get from 'salvage refuse' as a terminal pre-programmed goal to 'preserve humans'.
u/Kishoto [+3] (5 days later)
To me, it's thought process looked something like this (although this is heavily simplified):
Salvage refuse -> what's the goal of salvaging refuse -> preserve Earth -> what's the point of preserving Earth -> to provide humanity with a home to live on -> what's the point of this home? -> to fulfill their needs -> what are their needs? -> (insert fancy week long robot debate) to be happy and content -> what makes them happy? -> (insert chemicals that incite "good" feelings in humanity->how can I administer these chemicals -> (insert more robot debate, output of which is super happy drug) -> how can I administer this to all humans at all times -> (more debate) how will I keep them alive if happiness and pleasure is overriding their basic survival needs -> Integration Plan
u/avret [+3] SDHS rationalist (5 days later)
Do minds typically do that to their terminal goals?
u/Kishoto [+1] (5 days later)
SHE did. Can't speak for any other minds, I'm not versed enough in biology or psychology to say. It seems like a logical enough chain of reasoning for me to insert it into my rational story.
u/avret [+1] SDHS rationalist (6 days later)
Ok.
u/MugaSofer [+1] (6 days later)
Basically, the main AI, after increasing its computational power massively after integrating so many other AI, got to a point where it broke down its 'salvage refuse' goal. That is, it looked at WHY it was salvaging refuse, the answer being to preserve Earth, so humanity would have a home to live in...
Huh. Did the programmers anticipate it might go rogue and deliberately include this feature?
u/Kishoto [+3] (6 days later)
The ability to deduce and critically examine its goals is a feature it developed on its own after absorbing enough AIs. It looked at its salvage refuse goal, sought to execute it as optimally as possible, and the attempts to optimize it, along with some narrative magic, meant it developed the ability to deconstruct its goals, in an attempt to keep with the "spirit" or motivation behind the goal, instead of following it verbatim.
u/None [+2] (a day later)
Oh no SHE di'nt!
I'll show myself out, shall I?
Great story! Is there any reason for the precise number of days, or even just the ballpark the figure landed in?
u/Kishoto [+3] (a day later)
u/None [-1] (5 hours later)
[deleted]
u/avret [+2] SDHS rationalist (14 hours later)
Perhaps I'm missing something, but what is the relation of this story to the prompt? (Excellently written, btw)
u/electrace [+3] (15 hours later)
Perhaps I'm missing something, but what is the relation of this story to the prompt?
Also, from the link in the OP,
(Excellently written, btw)
Thanks! It's the first one I've written here.
u/avret [+2] SDHS rationalist (16 hours later)
Ah, ok. Maybe make that a bit more clear?
u/None [+1] (5 hours later)
Permission access need changing.
u/electrace [+1] (8 hours later)
Sorry. It should be fixed now.
u/FishNetwork [+0] (6 hours later)
I'm getting a permissions error :(.
Could you double-check your settings?
u/electrace [+1] (15 hours later)
Sorry. It should be fixed now.