A while back I came to the conclusion that “No wishing about wishing.” ought to be the wording of that particular genie rule. It prevents a whole heap of paradoxical wish behaviour as well as preventing simply asking for more. The neuralyser though, might be a loophole depending on whether the count of three is internal or external to the genie.
Consider: If the count is somehow external to the genie, the genie would attempt to grant a fourth wish and fail, or else be re-granted knowledge of the wish count for this particular wisher, if not necessarily the content of those wishes, at some point soon after the neuralyser has done its work.
There’s something of the Pinocchio paradox about this.
On the other hand, the neuralyser is a wish that affects wishing, which is technically a breach of the rule that outlaws asking for more wishes, so maybe it’s that which triggers something bad to happen with or without the genie’s knowledge.
Either way, a smart genie - and aren’t they all supposed to be monkey’s-paw-level tricksters? - would undoubtedly externalise the wish count the moment any concept of forgetting came into play, assuming it wasn’t external already.
The dude forgot to wish for Ray Bans so he also forgot all about it. Maybe that’s the bad thing that happened this time.
I’d probably start with the neuralyzer and test it first before making any other wishes.
