"Why is my burger blue?" I asked, innocently.
"Oh! We're making all of our food blue, all the best restaurants are doing it now." the waiter explained.
But I didn't want my burger to be blue.
(For the techbrodude shills: this is called “allegory”. Maybe you can ask ChatGPT to explain it to you.)
I don’t think this is really a very good allegory. The author has written 835 words and only managed to express that:
blue food tastes kind of weird
they’re putting it in everything
they’re putting up the prices of blue food
you can’t get normal food even if you want it
It’s not surprising to me that some people didn’t get that it was about AI.
The allegory would work better if:
production of blue food colouring took so much energy that they were bringing coal power plants back online and exacerbating climate change
in order to design the blue food colouring, they had to steal every person’s recipe books without permission and regardless of how private that information might be to the owner
the blue food colouring could spontaneously make a food taste almost like someone’s personal family recipe without their permission
foods containing the blue food colouring completely lack any expected nutritional content, and when a blue food does contain nutrition it’s just a random accident of the process
scientific studies of people eating exclusively blue foods show that not only are they malnourished, but their body can no longer process normal foods as efficiently as before.
To make these points, I think the metaphor needs to be something a little bit more complex than “blue food colouring.” Perhaps food made by a food replicator would make for a better example.
An argument doesn’t have to be all-encompassing to be effective. This is arguing against the enshittification caused by and unavoidability of AI for the average end user. It doesn’t have to list everything wrong with AI for that to be valid.
In this case, it’s just preaching to the choir. The purpose of an allegory is usually to present a convincing argument to people who are as yet unconvinced, by presenting the argument from a different point of view that they haven’t considered.
Did you mean: something that is outside of the possibilities of modern technology and is thus far enough from reality to be easily dismissed as irrelevant and not relatable?
Edit: not to mention, food colouring has no purpose (other than ooh shiny), whereas food replicators would solve SO MANY PROBLEMS.
I don’t think this is really a very good allegory. The author has written 835 words and only managed to express that:
It’s not surprising to me that some people didn’t get that it was about AI.
The allegory would work better if:
To make these points, I think the metaphor needs to be something a little bit more complex than “blue food colouring.” Perhaps food made by a food replicator would make for a better example.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
No really. Thank you for sharing your opinion.
nobody cares bro
An argument doesn’t have to be all-encompassing to be effective. This is arguing against the enshittification caused by and unavoidability of AI for the average end user. It doesn’t have to list everything wrong with AI for that to be valid.
In this case, it’s just preaching to the choir. The purpose of an allegory is usually to present a convincing argument to people who are as yet unconvinced, by presenting the argument from a different point of view that they haven’t considered.
Did you mean: something that is outside of the possibilities of modern technology and is thus far enough from reality to be easily dismissed as irrelevant and not relatable?
Edit: not to mention, food colouring has no purpose (other than ooh shiny), whereas food replicators would solve SO MANY PROBLEMS.