Interesting discussion... even by half of you who were unnecessarily snotty. (The other half will be ignored with a 1% snort you deserve.) And yes, of course I dashed mine off in 1/2 an hour with no intent to impose on my pal Eliezer. Indeed, his version makes much better fiction! It has drama and action. Mine only has ...rationality.
I note that not one of you chose to actually dissect Harry's logic, in my proposed ending. To explain the dozen coincidences in HPMoR that only fit if it's a simulation. What? Not even one?
BTW a slightly more polished version of my proposal is at
including the logical tradeoffs of what a negotiated positive sum settlement might look like. Look, I know that's not the chosen canonical answer! But isn't the form of a positive sum negotiated settlement something that would naturally intrigue fans of HPMoR? Is there an overlap of interests that would possibly give enough parties what they NEED, that they would overlook what they want?
I thought that might be interesting.
Another very interesting riff relates Eliezer's Harry Potter gambit to his famous challenge having to do with an "AI locked in a box."
This writer expected (as I did) that Eliezer would choose for chapter 114 an escape scenario in which HP TALKS his way out of the trap he is in, using the Methods of Rationality. That was the basis for my own contribution.
Alas, the one EY chose focused on a Magic Trick, having nothing whatsoever to do with the AI in a box problem. As I've said repeatedly, the chosen scenario is better fiction! More dramatic and fun! (But seriously, can we see an explanation of why a dark lord would leave his enemy holding a wand... and have no wards to detect if the wand was being used?)
Just sayin... ;-)
but that's the wonder of this fun thing Eliezer's done. It's a geef festival. And snarkers come with the territory. Thrive & think-on, guys.