I think in this schema, I am still saying a good (b) principle for anyone is probably something like "have knowledge of the (a)s of things and people you depend on, so you can know if any of your other (b)s might cause some conflict down the line".

(Also you can enclose things in * to emphasize on this site btw. There is a little grey 'help' next to the comment box.)

You can't let your strong principles get in the way of being practical in this kind of world! It's kinda impossible to be as absolute as you want to be but also have your head-in-the-sand about it. You kinda gotta pick one of those..

At the very least, just not a good look from the outside IMO.

Very modest opinion from a, as you can see, pretty dumb guy: the reason the Ring of Gyges is a "good" parable (or insert similar here) isn't because it somehow contains everything we want to be "argued" against, e.g., Thrasymachus. Rather, it's because it creates a unique ethical dimension to be interrogated and possibly overcome. It creates a true dilemma and a kind of need for ethics. OP's little story here just feels like Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius dressing on top of some commitments we are already supposed to be in on. It does not really inspire one to dig deeper, or to even really think (which kinda has a fun irony to it relative to the story).

Come to think of it, its not even clear there is a question of agency or like some inverted solipsism as you suggest. Wouldn't the wearer need to be compelled for that to be at stake? Kadmi-nomai can wear it and take it off, right?

Aren't they, from the inside and outside, just listening to magically good advice and getting along great because of it?

Is the story actually arguing something? I have just been literally asking what it even presumes itself to be about. Is it the gloss above?

If it's about agency, I don't get it. It seems silly/facile to assert the "right" decision is the thing that matters without making the thing so magic it doesn't even make sense. Does agency stop you from getting hit by a runaway bus? Help you from being persecuted for arbitrary reasons? The story tells us they all, unfailingly, live "abnormally successful" lives. That's all supposed to be because of their (non) agency because of the earring device?

But either way, people's minds do not wither in this story, it explicitly works out fine for them?

Either way, what is it right about? In your mind?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48911884

https://github.com/magit/forge

As for the experiment itself, this takes like two minutes to look up:

https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/5y6m4_v1

There is literally no delegation in the way (I think) you are meaning, there is the contrived presentation of different tools for different control groups.

Also, like I don't know why you are talking like I did this experiment? I just read it, I am not over here trying to argue for anything other than common sense and the ability to understand what the researchers were doing using even a oz of intellectual charity. Is that, too, impossible now? Where is the freaking fire?

Whatever you're bias is or not here, the point you are missing is this is not about any given AI, or even about any given AIs "reliability" or not. It's not even, really, about "delegation" itself. It's just studying the supposed correlation here between uncertainty and one certain form of a tool.

There is no damning, sweeping thing to argue for here, this is not an editorial or an opinion, and does not purport to even be some big finding I would say. It's a pop sci article about a study done by (I presume) sociologists.

So yes, I would either way say you missed the point here.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=21&prefix=false&q...

One interesting thing would be to see how the numbers change over the years alongside the otherwise identical debates.

Shouldn't having all powerful chat bot give you thicker skin, not thinner?

Not that anyone really cares here, but the gp quote isn't even really fundamentally a metaphor either way, its an exhortation to "imagine". The Orwell isn't even a metaphor!

> The researchers used Step 3.5 Flash, a model that was usually wrong on these questions, precisely so any reduction in judgment could not be explained as sensible delegation to a reliable tool.

(emphasis mine)