I like it as is, but I think that’s partly because I’m trying to do the same thing you are at the moment—update emotionally on existential risks like uFAI. It’s a problem that needs to be taken seriously, and its placement here gives a concrete villain to what might otherwise turn into a feel-good applause lights speech.
I think that’s a good point, and I’ll be leaving it as is for now.
I will eventually want to rewrite it (or something similar) with more traditional humanist elements. This brings up another question: if you remove the uFAI antagonist, is it actually bad that it’s a feel-good applause lights speech? It’s intended to be a call to action of sorts, without railroading the reader down any single action, other than to figure out their own values and work towards them. I don’t know if it really succeeded at that, with or without the uFAI references.
Edit: wow, totally forgot to add a word that altered the meaning of a sentence dramatically. Fixed.
I like it as is, but I think that’s partly because I’m trying to do the same thing you are at the moment—update emotionally on existential risks like uFAI. It’s a problem that needs to be taken seriously, and its placement here gives a concrete villain to what might otherwise turn into a feel-good applause lights speech.
I think that’s a good point, and I’ll be leaving it as is for now.
I will eventually want to rewrite it (or something similar) with more traditional humanist elements. This brings up another question: if you remove the uFAI antagonist, is it actually bad that it’s a feel-good applause lights speech? It’s intended to be a call to action of sorts, without railroading the reader down any single action, other than to figure out their own values and work towards them. I don’t know if it really succeeded at that, with or without the uFAI references.
Edit: wow, totally forgot to add a word that altered the meaning of a sentence dramatically. Fixed.