I agree with you and the anonymous Reddit commenter that this is a “cool story”, and that it needs “a shitton of paragraphs”.

But it also left me somewhat confused. The author’s note at the end states that “[the] story is 100 % fictional, except for all the parts about the EU AI Act having no enforcement teeth, which are unfortunately 100 % true”. The story chronicles a paper describing a solution, and the reaction of the main character who wishes he should have thought of this himself first. The solution is laid out high-level: AI self-awareness of potential problems, auto-pause until human review at first sign of potential problems, coupled with blockchain auditability.

So what is this story? An invitation for researchers to work out the details, and actually write the (thus-far fictional) 47-page paper? A teaser that such a paper might be forthcoming? A hope that this solution might materialize? Or just a fictional tale to vent some professional frustrations?

> So what is this story? An invitation for researchers to work out the details, and actually write the (thus-far fictional) 47-page paper? A teaser that such a paper might be forthcoming? A hope that this solution might materialize? Or just a fictional tale to vent some professional frustrations?

A story to entertain the reader?

> AUTHOR'S NOTE: This story is 100% fictional, except for all the parts about the EU AI Act having no enforcement teeth…

It’s a long parable to explain:

> FINAL THOUGHT: Somewhere in Brussels, right now, someone is discovering that "effective oversight" means nothing without the technical ability to enforce it. This story is for them

Yes I read to the end. But the parable is still a vehicle for "AI+Blockchain policing AI" is it not?

No more than Jesus’s parable about planting the tree being about the actual tree.