Sci-Fi Dismissal

Reducing technical discussions to pop culture references (Skynet, Black Mirror, etc.) to dismiss concerns without engaging with the actual substance.

• "So... Skynet?"
• "This is literally the plot of Black Mirror."
• "Someone's been watching too much Westworld."
• "Great, another step toward The Matrix."

Why It's Unproductive

Treats legitimate technical or ethical concerns as naive science fiction fears rather than engaging with the specific risks or trade-offs being discussed. It sounds knowing and clever but replaces nuanced conversation with a cultural reference that everyone already knows. Often done to signal sophistication by suggesting the other person is confusing fiction with reality, when they're usually trying to discuss actual implementation challenges.

The Better Move

• "Self-preservation goals raise interesting alignment questions. How would you prevent that from conflicting with human values?"
• "That's getting into instrumental convergence territory. What safeguards would make this safe?"
• "I see the concern. What's the benefit you see that outweighs the risks?"
• "The Black Mirror comparison isn't far off, but what specifically worries you about this implementation?"

Why It's Better

Takes the concern seriously and asks about specifics. Acknowledges the parallel to fiction without dismissing the substantive point, keeping the conversation focused on actual technical or ethical questions.

Example

OP: "Giving AI systems meta-goals like self-preservation could be useful for long-running autonomous operations."

Antipattern reply: "> meta goals like self-preservation\n\nAh, so Skynet or similar."

Better: "Self-preservation goals raise interesting questions about alignment. How would you prevent that from conflicting with human objectives?"