Am I hallucinating or has this (or something very similar) been posted here before?

[EDITED to add:] I can't find the previous very similar thing I thought I remembered, so either I'm hallucinating or it's been deleted. (But my what-I-thought-was-memory of how the story ended was basically correct, which seems like evidence against hallucination.)

Hey, finally a story I can hope is actually a possible future! much better than if we're the only ones...

You know, it doesn’t have to be like that. Machinery, I mean. The future doesn’t have to be cold, angular metal if you would just believe in biology. Learn to engineer your own genetic code and create a future in space for soft, warm, living, feeling organisms.

Strong agree. It's a shame society has a taboo against human genetic engineering.

Tentative GPT4's summary. 
Up/Downvote "Overall" if the summary is useful/harmful.
Up/Downvote "Agreement" if the summary is correct/wrong.

TLDR: The piece is a fictional story, illustrating a cautionary tale about inventors eagerly creating self-replicating machines, without considering the potential dangers and loss of biodiversity that may come with replacing warm, living organic life with cold machinery.

Arguments: The protagonist argues against the development of self-replicating machines, stating that the best-case scenario is that machines run amok after human extinction. The machines are compared to the concept of initial self-replicating chemical mechanisms that led to biological evolution. The story suggests that the loss of organic life in favor of machinery can still be prevented.

Takeaways:
1. Consider long-term consequences when developing self-replicating machines.
2. Be cautious and reflective before rushing into creating technologies that can have harmful effects on biodiversity and organic life.
3. Technology should advance organic life, not replace it.

Strengths: The story illustrates the potential risks of uncontrolled self-replicating machinery, prompting awareness of the importance of caution and reflection in advancing AI technology.

Weaknesses: As a fictional story, it does not provide real-world implications or concrete research data to support the arguments presented.

Interactions: The content could engage comparisons and interactions with:
1. AI safety discussions.
2. Ethical considerations in AI research.
3. Debates over AI alignment, focusing on long-term goals.

Factual mistakes: N/A, as this is a fiction piece, there are no factual mistakes. However, the TLDR and other sections imply a more serious academic analysis that might not accurately represent the original content.

Missing arguments: The story does not critically explore alternative solutions or discuss concrete steps to mitigate the issues raised due to its fictional format.