Question stolen from Twitter:
Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
my choice and rationale
my choice and rationale:
Blue button because it’s the superior moral choice. Moreover, the red button world becomes shithole tier hell with all of the genuinely cooperative people eliminated. High trust is gone and you have global izzat chicanery. May God have mercy on red buttoners.
Blue button because it’s the superior moral choice. Moreover, the red button world becomes shithole tier hell with all of the genuinely cooperative people eliminated. High trust is gone and you have global izzat chicanery. May God have mercy on red buttoners.
my choice and rationale
@BowsacNoodle
Exactly. I don't care about "being completely safe". I really don't want people to die. The blue is literally the only good choice.
But man, do I wish the red pressers the world they would get.
You could make a neat short story where this happens, but it’s just a way to ID misanthropes. It becomes a public event and the people who voted red are suddenly all recognized by some distinct thing (idk maybe they all grow a horn out of their forehead).
re: my choice and rationale
@BowsacNoodle @LukeAlmighty But Bowsac, if everyone presses the red button, everyone lives. The blue button is just the “maybe I die” button.
re: my choice and rationale
@Griffith @BowsacNoodle
> If an absurd hypothetical, that literally never happened....
But it didn't happen, and you knew it won't. So, pressinng red is the selfish option, and you knew it would be.
re: my choice and rationale
@LukeAlmighty @BowsacNoodle No I didn’t. If everyone knows red button pressers are guaranteed to survive, we can just all agree to press the red button. Since there’s no upside to the blue button, everyone presses red, and everyone survives.
re: my choice and rationale
@Griffith @BowsacNoodle
Do you understand the concept of world existing outside of your "everyone agrees with me" framework?
@Griffith @BowsacNoodle
Pressing red assumes that everyone is as selfish as you, or that people are not worth saving.
Pressing blue is hoping that at least 50% of people are good people.
@LukeAlmighty @BowsacNoodle but you have to put your life on the line with that. If you press red, and everyone pushes red, everyone gets out of the dilemma. There’s no potential bad outcome if everyone pushes red.
@Griffith @BowsacNoodle
There is no potential bad outcome, if everyone pushes blue either.
Do you seriously not see, that you wrote a tautology?
You wrote a "there is no bad outcome in 0.001% of cases" while I said that there is no bad outcome if just 50% of people are good.
@Griffith @BowsacNoodle
And yes, I know, that the entire question is a framing issue, but a truly interesting one.
Morality or not, we've got two choices here: the "everyone who presses this button lives" button, and the "if I press this button there's a chance I die" button.
Literally everyone should press the red button. There should be ad campaigns about how much the red button ought to be the one you press. Pamphlets. Planes in the sky should write messages. Because every red button is a choice to live.
"My people would press the blue button because it makes us better people!" Great, but your community is in the minority and will not win the vote.
The only reason to press the blue button is you think someone else is stupid enough to press the blue button and you want to try to protect them from themselves, but then you become one of them. God sent you a speedboat, a helicopter, and a ship and you chose to drown.
Literally everyone should press the red button. There should be ad campaigns about how much the red button ought to be the one you press. Pamphlets. Planes in the sky should write messages. Because every red button is a choice to live.
"My people would press the blue button because it makes us better people!" Great, but your community is in the minority and will not win the vote.
The only reason to press the blue button is you think someone else is stupid enough to press the blue button and you want to try to protect them from themselves, but then you become one of them. God sent you a speedboat, a helicopter, and a ship and you chose to drown.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 2
@sj_zero
A society can only work in a world, where half of people are willing to press the blue button, knowing that they can rely on others pressing it too.
@LukeAlmighty @BowsacNoodle It is interesting, but to me the risk of the blue bad outcome is so vast, that the safest option is everyone voting red.
Imagine if 51% of people vote red? That’s the end of the world. If blue wins that’s a feel-good moral victory, but we have a perfect solution.
If the titanic is sinking, but we have enough lifeboats for everyone, why doesn’t everyone just get in a lifeboat? No one has to be left behind or risk anything.
Imagine if 51% of people vote red? That’s the end of the world. If blue wins that’s a feel-good moral victory, but we have a perfect solution.
If the titanic is sinking, but we have enough lifeboats for everyone, why doesn’t everyone just get in a lifeboat? No one has to be left behind or risk anything.
@Griffith @BowsacNoodle
And that worst outcome is exactly, where your thought process lead us to though :D
I understand that. You understand that. I do not bank on all good natured decent people understanding that. I choose blue.
@LukeAlmighty @BowsacNoodle True, but I can't guarentee that the Titanic doesn't hit the iceberg, I can only guarentee there's a lifeboat for everyone.
@LukeAlmighty the red button is objectively the right answer. if you click the red button you live no matter what. if everyone presses the red button nobody dies. if you're too dumb to realize this maybe you deserve the blue button.
@beardalaxy
Every single scenario that begins with "if everyone" is about as useful as information that if all atoms aligned, you can pass through objects.
I press red and then post on Reddit about how I'm such a hecking good person for pressing blue
>Imagine if 51% of people vote red? That’s the end of the world.
if 80% of people vote red, that’s the end of the world. Blue would partly be made up of suicidal/people doing it for the lolz, but the majority would be people who feel morally bad about contributing to the death of others. Humanity would be worse off without those people. In a big way.
if 80% of people vote red, that’s the end of the world. Blue would partly be made up of suicidal/people doing it for the lolz, but the majority would be people who feel morally bad about contributing to the death of others. Humanity would be worse off without those people. In a big way.
Half of your body dies if you don’t press either (major stroke).
No, not at all.
We live in a society full of people who press the blue button assuming everyone else will bail them out for their choice and thus be dragged down with them.
To live in a society of red button pressers is to live in a society where individuals take responsibility for their own well-being first and foremost, and more importantly not burden others with the risk of their existence. It's selfish to demand others put themselves at risk to validate you, when everyone could be just fine if they just make the obvious choice and protect themselves.
Morally speaking, forcing others to consider pressing blue and potentially dying just to save you is a sort of moral vanity. You press blue because it feels nice to press blue, but insodoing you perpetuate a potentially lethal plague, for no other reason than you think others might too.
But there are entire continents with billions of people who would laugh at the concept of pressing blue as well. You don't outnumber them, they won't press blue. That's the whole scenario in the west right now, when you think about it.
We live in a society full of people who press the blue button assuming everyone else will bail them out for their choice and thus be dragged down with them.
To live in a society of red button pressers is to live in a society where individuals take responsibility for their own well-being first and foremost, and more importantly not burden others with the risk of their existence. It's selfish to demand others put themselves at risk to validate you, when everyone could be just fine if they just make the obvious choice and protect themselves.
Morally speaking, forcing others to consider pressing blue and potentially dying just to save you is a sort of moral vanity. You press blue because it feels nice to press blue, but insodoing you perpetuate a potentially lethal plague, for no other reason than you think others might too.
But there are entire continents with billions of people who would laugh at the concept of pressing blue as well. You don't outnumber them, they won't press blue. That's the whole scenario in the west right now, when you think about it.
WE DUH ONES WHO MAKE DUH SEESNIN TO PUT ON DIS HYEAH FOO HERETOFORE WE BE APPROXIMATIN HIS COOKIN NAWMEAN HE JUSS TAWT US WHAT WE ALREADY KNEW N WHAT HE STOLE FROM US NIGGA HE AIN'T TEACH US SHEIT
@BowsacNoodle @Griffith @LukeAlmighty It doesn't take that long to think about the problem and to come to the conclusion that nobody dies if everyone presses the red button. The vote is secret but rational people are going to come to the same conclusion as Griffith by just gaming it out in their head.
@BowsacNoodle @Griffith @LukeAlmighty RIP Bowsac
We know what people *here* would press, but what did the Twitter thread look like?
We know what people *here* would press, but what did the Twitter thread look like?
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating @Griffith @BowsacNoodle
Better survivor rate then here.
@LukeAlmighty @Griffith @BowsacNoodle Oh interesting. That sort of tracks with the guess that blue is the midwit choice, then.
An idiot who has no morality just presses red. A careful mathematician also estimates that everyone else is a rational actor and observes that red is the Nash Equilibrium in this game - hoping that everyone else is as smart as him and also presses red.
I do not understand the psychology of someone who picks blue and then rationalizes it for a lengthy period of time afterwards.
An idiot who has no morality just presses red. A careful mathematician also estimates that everyone else is a rational actor and observes that red is the Nash Equilibrium in this game - hoping that everyone else is as smart as him and also presses red.
I do not understand the psychology of someone who picks blue and then rationalizes it for a lengthy period of time afterwards.
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating @Griffith @BowsacNoodle
Well, you could call me midwhit if that is a sufficient explanation, but I simply do not expect everyone to act rational. Where did that ever happen in hystory?
Nah. I want to go for the option, that ends up with noone dying. Simple as that. And we both know, that there will be many people who will try to save everyone, and that knowledge itself turns the red button from "obvious" to a selfish one.
That counts as a red press but also you die and also the President calls you a faggot on National TV
@Kazak @grips @LukeAlmighty Imagine not being awesome enough that Donald Trump, jewcum guzzler extraordinaire, does not call you a fag on live National TV. Grips has truly found the winning solution.
There was a different version of this post from a few years ago but the results were pretty much the same
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating @Griffith @BowsacNoodle
Don't you think that expecting people to act "fully rationally" is the peak midwhitery though?
I press blue expecting that at least 50% of people will either be stupid, or willing to ensure the good outcome for everyone, since anyone without a robotic thinking will know that there are people in the blue category.
I think the calculus is simple:
1. if there's no personal downside to pressing the red button, everyone's going to press it.
2. there are too many people in the world anyway.
Downstream effects like "red button-pushers are selfish and will create a selective bias toward sociopathy" is real, but the point is that we're already in a democratic hellscape completely beyond our control.
Blue buttoners are "noble losers" predictably taking the worse choice because it's a "moral victory." They like to pretend the high-mindedness of a few hundred million is going to outweigh the natural inclination of 3B Indians and Chinese, plus everyone who sees the choice for what it is.
1. if there's no personal downside to pressing the red button, everyone's going to press it.
2. there are too many people in the world anyway.
Downstream effects like "red button-pushers are selfish and will create a selective bias toward sociopathy" is real, but the point is that we're already in a democratic hellscape completely beyond our control.
Blue buttoners are "noble losers" predictably taking the worse choice because it's a "moral victory." They like to pretend the high-mindedness of a few hundred million is going to outweigh the natural inclination of 3B Indians and Chinese, plus everyone who sees the choice for what it is.
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating @Griffith @BowsacNoodle
And obviously, in here, it is 30x easier to press blue then in real life.
The real threat to life would overwtire everyone's real logic into pressing red anyway. Therefore, this thread is just a funny post to me anyway.
Please, I hope noone takes it too seriously. :D
@LukeAlmighty red because every retard that presses the blue button is probably the same type that believes "we are all one race, the human race" kind of bullshit
aka human cattle
aka human cattle
@rlier23 @LukeAlmighty It’s exactly the same kind of suicidal empathy. You’re throwing your life away trying to save people too stupid to save themselves.
If you push red you live guaranteed. So there is no reason for anyone to push the blue button. Thank you friend.
"a society can only work in a world where half of people [expect everyone else to save them at great risk to themselves and for no discernible benefit]"
@monsterislandcolonizer @sj_zero
YES!
In safe society, a kid can play outside unsurpervised, since you know others will be willing to sacrefice themselves to help if anything happened to them.
In an unsafe society where everyone saves themselves, a kid cannot go outside alone.
That is the difference. (BTW, I had no idea just how bad of a place America was, until I learned, that "just walking outside" is considered suspicious)
@LukeAlmighty @Griffith @BowsacNoodle Expecting literally everyone to act rationally is silly, of course, but I would absolutely not expect *more than half* the population to act irrationally.
Pressing blue is just suicide. I expect any adult to realize this. I expect any adult to be able to explain this to their children - and I assume that in this situation, even if the votes are secret, the parents have the ability to explain this to their kids before they vote.
If there's a lengthy amount of time before the vote, then the rationale for pressing red can be made to everyone. Mathematicians around the world will shriek to the populace, "I am pressing red, and for the love of all that is holy you must as well."
Pressing blue is just suicide. I expect any adult to realize this. I expect any adult to be able to explain this to their children - and I assume that in this situation, even if the votes are secret, the parents have the ability to explain this to their kids before they vote.
If there's a lengthy amount of time before the vote, then the rationale for pressing red can be made to everyone. Mathematicians around the world will shriek to the populace, "I am pressing red, and for the love of all that is holy you must as well."
I am familiar with game theory. Blue is the morally correct choice. Red is the correct choice for those you care about and your own survival. It’s not even a contest. I still choose blue (at least online) because I prefer no one die.
Reminds me of the fun standoff clip I saw from the show “Golden Ball“. I wish I could find it.
Reminds me of the fun standoff clip I saw from the show “Golden Ball“. I wish I could find it.
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating @Griffith @BowsacNoodle
This reminds me of the Covid vax debate, where some "smart" people got truly pissed off, when they said: The best option is if everyone get's vaxed. The 2nd best is when noone gets vaxed. But the worst one is when half of population gets the vax, because then the virus can adapt.
Me: And since you know that half the population will refuse, you will give it up, right?
Them: So, why cannot these idiots just get vaxed????
All their IQ didn't allow them to see, that they chose the worst option just on principle of the best one not being possible.
@karna @Griffith @LukeAlmighty @BowsacNoodle @ceo_of_monoeye_dating Here's the court session
You can’t control others’ actions, even if you’re showing them the rationality. Therefore there is a chance you will be contributing to their death. I’m so sci-fi irony poisoned I half expect a circumstance like this come from some deus ex alien that kills the selfish reds.
@BowsacNoodle @LukeAlmighty @ceo_of_monoeye_dating I personally think it’s brainrot to punish people that make the right choice. Feels very anti-racist to me.
It’s only selfish if your life is worth nothing, and there’s nothing lost by pressing the red button. Blue button people are essentially killing themselves on the basis of a useless principle.
If there was a single downside to everyone pressing red, I would flip, but there’s not, so the argument boils down to “risk your life, because some people can’t read instructions.”
It’s only selfish if your life is worth nothing, and there’s nothing lost by pressing the red button. Blue button people are essentially killing themselves on the basis of a useless principle.
If there was a single downside to everyone pressing red, I would flip, but there’s not, so the argument boils down to “risk your life, because some people can’t read instructions.”
I once told a famous game theorist professor of mine that game theory was just religion and had no basis in reality...
Total (((game theorist))) death...
Total (((game theorist))) death...
"in a safe society" is doing a LOT of work here
Also, there are many "unsafe" societies where children still go outside alone so "can kids play outside unsupervised" isn't a useful metric.
Also, there are many "unsafe" societies where children still go outside alone so "can kids play outside unsupervised" isn't a useful metric.
The single downside to not pressing it is that not everyone presses it. That’s pretty obvious to me
@Frondeur @LukeAlmighty @aceattorneybot @BowsacNoodle @karna @ceo_of_monoeye_dating The radical atheist known as Frondeur.
I-I just don't want to live with all these people anymore...
I think what's interesting about the discussion is the difference between stated and revealed preferences
lol...someone has to justify why their religion is better than mine...before i waste a semester learning it...especially if their motivating example is the contested garment rule from the talmud...
@Frondeur @Griffith @LukeAlmighty @aceattorneybot @BowsacNoodle @karna Game Theory is not a religion though. It's just "I think the other guy is as smart as me. What would I do if I was in his position? OK, now what would I do if he did that?"
dead wrong...it relies on cardinal utility and of course an assumption of what rationality is...
@monsterislandcolonizer @Griffith @BowsacNoodle @ceo_of_monoeye_dating
Yes, obviously the revealed preferences would be everyone pressing the red, since it would turn a philosophical/mathematical discussion into a real life danger.
@Frondeur @Griffith @LukeAlmighty @aceattorneybot @BowsacNoodle @karna Yes but cardinal utility essentially holds here. Everyone has two outcomes: "I live or I die." Because there's exactly two outcomes here, these can be quantized as "1" and "0" easily.
Sure the assumptions of Game Theory do not apply 100% of the time, but they absolutely do apply here and we should use tools that apply without crying that they don't always apply.
Sure the assumptions of Game Theory do not apply 100% of the time, but they absolutely do apply here and we should use tools that apply without crying that they don't always apply.
> Because there's exactly two outcomes here, these can be quantized as "1" and "0" easily...
no and that's the problem...already in this thread people told you their "utility" is not I live or I die...
no and that's the problem...already in this thread people told you their "utility" is not I live or I die...
@Frondeur @LukeAlmighty @aceattorneybot @BowsacNoodle @karna @ceo_of_monoeye_dating Is there a second rationality here?
yes...ceo of monoeye cannot conceive of people valuing things differently than him so yes that is probably a form of bounded rationality...but i meant more generally that since we are assuming how other people would behave you need a universal of rationality...
i've seen the original poll restated as "everyone is in a giant blender. If you press the red button you get to leave, if greater than 50% of people press the blue button, the blender doesn't turn on" and the results were very different from the original poll
@Frondeur @Griffith @LukeAlmighty @aceattorneybot @BowsacNoodle @karna Fine. Let's go ahead and proceed by drawing out the matrix, then.
There's 7-8 billion people in the world. Your vote does not matter in any meaningful way. Either most people will press blue or most people will press red.
If you press red, then either nobody dies or everyone who pressed blue dies. If you press blue, then either nobody dies or everyone who pressed blue *plus you* dies.
Your choices are functionally "maybe I die" or "I definitely don't die." Yes, each square is going to have varying utility for each person, but you have two choices, and there is only one difference between the two choices. Game theory applies unless you want to account for the astronomically small probability that your vote mattered.
There's 7-8 billion people in the world. Your vote does not matter in any meaningful way. Either most people will press blue or most people will press red.
If you press red, then either nobody dies or everyone who pressed blue dies. If you press blue, then either nobody dies or everyone who pressed blue *plus you* dies.
Your choices are functionally "maybe I die" or "I definitely don't die." Yes, each square is going to have varying utility for each person, but you have two choices, and there is only one difference between the two choices. Game theory applies unless you want to account for the astronomically small probability that your vote mattered.
no...i dont think i will be looking at your matrix...because even without looking at it...either it ascribes payouts or it's ill defined...those are the rules of the game...and of course in ascribing payouts you are making a universal claim to knowledge of value...
another way to look at it...game theorists not avoiding constructing a falsifiable theory difficulty...
another way to look at it...game theorists not avoiding constructing a falsifiable theory difficulty...
@Frondeur @Griffith @LukeAlmighty @aceattorneybot @BowsacNoodle @karna If there were more than two meaningfully distinct outcomes then you would have a valid point.
There are not.
There are not.
>meaningfully...
and there you concede my point...for you it's meaningless how you come to live in this game so long as you live...for others it matters how they and others chose...creating nuance in the outcomes...
and there you concede my point...for you it's meaningless how you come to live in this game so long as you live...for others it matters how they and others chose...creating nuance in the outcomes...
@Frondeur @LukeAlmighty @aceattorneybot @BowsacNoodle @karna @ceo_of_monoeye_dating There's not a concievable second value here. Maybe some people want to die but they can vote blue no matter who. Without deconstructing human desires completely into mush, we can assume humans want to live, and want other humans to live.
>we can assume humans want to live...
very good....now you are adding a utilitarian ethic on top of individual cardinal utility...still not further away from religion...if anything closer...
but I ask...which humans???
very good....now you are adding a utilitarian ethic on top of individual cardinal utility...still not further away from religion...if anything closer...
but I ask...which humans???
@Frondeur @LukeAlmighty @aceattorneybot @BowsacNoodle @karna @ceo_of_monoeye_dating White ones obviously.
@Frondeur @BowsacNoodle @LukeAlmighty @aceattorneybot @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @karna Which I myself am, adding to the case for red.
im not arguing which is right...i just hate game theory...because even among economists it's especially lousy with talmudists...lol
@Frondeur @LukeAlmighty @aceattorneybot @BowsacNoodle @karna @ceo_of_monoeye_dating Except the red outcome can create the same outcome as the blue outcome with zero risk if everyone chooses red.
>can create...
again this is not falsifiable...
and now we need a theory of risk...
again this is not falsifiable...
and now we need a theory of risk...
@Frondeur @Griffith @LukeAlmighty @aceattorneybot @BowsacNoodle @karna I'm going to guess that you're too retarded to understand what I'm trying to tell you, and I'll respond to other people who bring up similar objections.
@BowsacNoodle@poa.st you can either put your head in the guillotine or not. If at least 50% of people put their own heads in the guillotine, then none of the guillotines will drop.
There are no consequences to you or anyone else if you don't put your head in the guillotine other than you won't contribute to the count in the 50% threshold to prevent guillotine disactivation. There are also no consequences to anyone else who chooses not to.
Clearly the morally correct decision is to kill yourself for no reason since no one was ever compelled to put their head in the guillotine. You should just throw away your life because killing yourself among the suicidal gives you the warm fuzzies in your tummy.
But you should press the blue button for untagging people in the thread, soapbox user. Please use a sane frontend such as on https://pl.poa.st
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating@tsundere.love
@LukeAlmighty@gameliberty.club @Griffith@clubcyberia.co @BowsacNoodle@poa.st
There are no consequences to you or anyone else if you don't put your head in the guillotine other than you won't contribute to the count in the 50% threshold to prevent guillotine disactivation. There are also no consequences to anyone else who chooses not to.
Clearly the morally correct decision is to kill yourself for no reason since no one was ever compelled to put their head in the guillotine. You should just throw away your life because killing yourself among the suicidal gives you the warm fuzzies in your tummy.
But you should press the blue button for untagging people in the thread, soapbox user. Please use a sane frontend such as on https://pl.poa.st
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating@tsundere.love
@LukeAlmighty@gameliberty.club @Griffith@clubcyberia.co @BowsacNoodle@poa.st
Your framing is different. As is presented, all necks are already in the guillotine and the choice is to kill everyone who doesn’t press the red button or kill no one (blue button). Under your framing, the correct choice is to not do anything. Diffrrent circumstances.
Hey what if we mixed this up and maybe had a trolley that would switch the track from red to blue and everyone riding would have their vote cast for this…
Hey what if we mixed this up and maybe had a trolley that would switch the track from red to blue and everyone riding would have their vote cast for this…
@Griffith @LukeAlmighty @aceattorneybot @BowsacNoodle @Frondeur @karna That's not the issue. Frondeur and Bowsac *correctly* point out that the blue column contains values which may be different for different people.
That is not the issue. The issue is that whether or not you press the red/blue buttons and whether or not the majority presses the red/blue buttons are essentially independent of each other. This means your choices do meaningfully boil down to "maybe I die" and "I definitely don't die." Because there are exactly two meaningful outcomes, you can quantize them and apply game theory.
Frondeur is saying: "Game theory does not always apply, because we cannot always give these choices a value that is the same for each person." But because there's only those two alternatives, we can in fact do this, simply by labeling "maybe I die" as 0 and "I definitely don't die" as 1.
If there was a third alternative, Frondeur would have a valid objection, because those might have different values for different people. There is not a third alternative, and Frondeur is just being pedantic.
That is not the issue. The issue is that whether or not you press the red/blue buttons and whether or not the majority presses the red/blue buttons are essentially independent of each other. This means your choices do meaningfully boil down to "maybe I die" and "I definitely don't die." Because there are exactly two meaningful outcomes, you can quantize them and apply game theory.
Frondeur is saying: "Game theory does not always apply, because we cannot always give these choices a value that is the same for each person." But because there's only those two alternatives, we can in fact do this, simply by labeling "maybe I die" as 0 and "I definitely don't die" as 1.
If there was a third alternative, Frondeur would have a valid objection, because those might have different values for different people. There is not a third alternative, and Frondeur is just being pedantic.
@Frondeur @Griffith @LukeAlmighty @aceattorneybot @BowsacNoodle @karna "I am going to bring up an objection."
"Here, I shall explain why that objection does not apply, it's easy."
"I don't understand and refuse to listen."
"Well then I'm going to assume you're retarded."
"I won the argument."
No, you're just too fucking dumb to argue with.
"Here, I shall explain why that objection does not apply, it's easy."
"I don't understand and refuse to listen."
"Well then I'm going to assume you're retarded."
"I won the argument."
No, you're just too fucking dumb to argue with.
no i sadly had to take graduate level game theory from top game theorists...you are using the most basic entry level tool and decided that you are right...if you wanted to get full credit on this problem...you would have had to account for the full tree of choices...you didn't because doing so would reveal that you have to make a choice about the utility of all other people...and restrict the utility of each individual atomistically...but in writing that out you would have to admit moral choices beyond your comprehension...
you are just not a smart man...and that's ok...
you are just not a smart man...and that's ok...
@BowsacNoodle @LukeAlmighty @lolitechengineer @ceo_of_monoeye_dating Everyone's necks are in the guillotine, but everyone can just pull their neck out of the guillotine. There's no downside to pulling their neck out of the guillotine, the objection is just that some people might not be smart enough to do so, so we should keep our necks in the guillotine.
Still different framing. The detachment between the button and physical act as well as collective punishment for those who object. You could frame it as a slave revolt wherein if the majority revolt, those who stay behind are killed (red button) vs the uprising is squashed with no consequences (blue).
But everyone doesn’t pick blue red. I have already addressed this. Furthermore, the people who don’t pick blue red might include genuinely good people who are high trust. More likely than not.
>Frondeur is saying: "Game theory does not always apply...
no im saying it never applies except accidentally...
no im saying it never applies except accidentally...
Voting blue is essentially nobody talks, everybody walks. Red is taking a plea deal. Most of you are untrustworthy it seems.
@Shadowbroker2135 @LukeAlmighty @BowsacNoodle
Sorry, I have seen reality and know that nobody really trusts each other. Red is the only guarantee that we live if we all push it. Blue implies some progressive idea of implicit trust of all people cross national and cross racial. Its a huge gamble and blue buttoners deserve what they get coming to them.
Sorry, I have seen reality and know that nobody really trusts each other. Red is the only guarantee that we live if we all push it. Blue implies some progressive idea of implicit trust of all people cross national and cross racial. Its a huge gamble and blue buttoners deserve what they get coming to them.
Also doesn't help that toids can't separate the exercise from voting republican and democrat. The colors should have been green and white.
@Shadowbroker2135 @LukeAlmighty @BowsacNoodle You should view it less as a plea deal and more like eugenics.
That’s true. Red voters have shown they’re genetically selfish. We will deal with them after.
@Shadowbroker2135 @LukeAlmighty @BowsacNoodle Except if everyone votes red, everyone walks. There’s 0 risk if everyone votes red, so it’s the optimal solution.
Voting blue essentially means you didn’t read the assignment.
Voting blue essentially means you didn’t read the assignment.
@BowsacNoodle @LukeAlmighty @Shadowbroker2135 Oy vey but that would be causing harm. Are you sure you don't want to try some suicidal empathy? Press the blue button again, you'll love it.
@BowsacNoodle@poa.st no, this is the different framing. Those who don't revolt are actively endangering all to continued slavery, those who do endanger themselves. The masters are endangered.
All groups are endangered at different risks and probabilities.
No one is endangered by the red button except those who choose to endarger themselves.
All groups are endangered at different risks and probabilities.
No one is endangered by the red button except those who choose to endarger themselves.
@BowsacNoodle@poa.st also stop untagging everyone nigger
@BowsacNoodle @LukeAlmighty @Shadowbroker2135 Why do you assume anyone would vote blue? Barring accidents, what’s the rationale for voting blue? Everyone votes red, the risk is eliminated, no one dies, we all go home.
Everyone won’t vote blue. I assume a lot of ‘good‘ people will vote blue. In fact, I assume more good people will vote blue than red. In reality, red would likely win because it is factually a risk-free choice for yourself. Only a silly goose wouldn’t see that. But, I choose blue for internet poll and argument because I support the good.
@BowsacNoodle @LukeAlmighty @lolitechengineer @ceo_of_monoeye_dating I think if it wasn’t presented in a binary way no one would think of pressing the blue button. If your head was in a guillotine, and you had the option to pull it out, and everyone had the option to pull it out, I don’t think anyone would stay and risk their life.
@Griffith @BowsacNoodle @LukeAlmighty @Shadowbroker2135 people will certainly vote blue because this is such an obvious opportunity to freely genocide white Christian boomers, that there will be an enormous wave of propaganda in support of voting blue. You don't want other people to die, do you?
if you took half a second to read it you'd vote red. it's basically an IQ test to see if you deserve to live.
I guess if you want to put it that way. But you’re a marble statue, so it makes me want to vote blue to distance myself.
>mfw marble statue wakes up in a world bereft of brown people because they were too illiterate to read the question
@apropos @LukeAlmighty @BowsacNoodle @Shadowbroker2135 See, this is my real problem. It becomes an IQ test, and I don’t want to be dragged down by the blues.
In this scenario, it might even be rigged, and blue is guaranteed to lose.
I think there’s a deeper problem with associating good with low-IQ. I find smart people are more empathetic, so I hope they would make the smart decision, so they’re guaranteed to go on living. Choosing blue is a reckless endangerment of their own life. It tests what feels good versus what is actually good, and I’m going to choose what’s actually good no matter what.
In this scenario, it might even be rigged, and blue is guaranteed to lose.
I think there’s a deeper problem with associating good with low-IQ. I find smart people are more empathetic, so I hope they would make the smart decision, so they’re guaranteed to go on living. Choosing blue is a reckless endangerment of their own life. It tests what feels good versus what is actually good, and I’m going to choose what’s actually good no matter what.
@Griffith @BowsacNoodle @LukeAlmighty @Shadowbroker2135 yes, the virtuous answer is "red, and then we hunt down and kill everyone who advocated that others press blue." Those people are guilty by virtue of still being alive to be hanged.
Who are these "people" whose lives you are trying to save? Are any of them brown? Because if you are concerned with saving the lives of all 9+ billion "people" on earth, I dunno man.
Lets be honest here, if every featherless biped on this planet votes, red's winning. You only need to look at a population map to see most of the world ALWAYS votes red, every single time, every single opportunity. That's why they are what they are.
But you know what? I'm voting blue anyway. Because some outcomes are actually worse than death, and living on a Red Planet is one of them.
But you know what? I'm voting blue anyway. Because some outcomes are actually worse than death, and living on a Red Planet is one of them.
the cost of living in a society is shaving brown lives by voting blue.
@cjd @LukeAlmighty @Xenophon @BowsacNoodle @Shadowbroker2135 I think pegging White people as suckers is the worst part of team blues assumptions. Why is it assumed that people who are self-interested are selfish? If I died I think the world would be a worse place. Shouldn’t risk it.
This poll needs to carry some real world weight. Make it a timeout from the fedi for like two months? Team Risk gets their way they can be smug and lord it over Team Safe.
But anyone who thinks things will go according to plan hasn't been paying attention to how our democracy works. Influx of red votes from an instance nobody is familiar with in 3, 2, ...
But anyone who thinks things will go according to plan hasn't been paying attention to how our democracy works. Influx of red votes from an instance nobody is familiar with in 3, 2, ...
@Frondeur @Griffith @LukeAlmighty @aceattorneybot @BowsacNoodle @karna >In order to make a reasonable estimate on what the right thing to do is, you have to write out every detail about what everyone on Earth is going to do with their own utility values
Yeah, or I could ignore this type of retarded pilpul. Mash that blue button faggot.
Yeah, or I could ignore this type of retarded pilpul. Mash that blue button faggot.
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating @Frondeur @BowsacNoodle @Griffith @LukeAlmighty @aceattorneybot @karna Is this still fucking about pascals wager?
@LukeAlmighty @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @Griffith @BowsacNoodle For the retards on here go ahead and argue your way out of this one.
@technolyze @Griffith @LukeAlmighty @BowsacNoodle @ceo_of_monoeye_dating The essence of the thread is using logic to pick the 'correct' answer between two choices, when this logical problem was worked out already hundreds of years ago, and the midwits haven't realized they are just rehashing Pascal's Wager.
@Mamako @technolyze @BowsacNoodle @Griffith @LukeAlmighty One might argue that in Pascal's Wager there are concerns that your faith needs to be "somehow sincere" in order to believe in God, and there's third/fourth/fifth/etc. options so it's a poor model...
But all of those counterarguments do not exist in this scenario.
But all of those counterarguments do not exist in this scenario.
>in Pascal's Wager there are concerns that your faith needs to be "somehow sincere" in order to believe in God
I’m pretty sure he makes the opposite argument at some point, that essentially you can fake it till you make it. It’s been a while since I read up on this. I only half cared in ethics and philosophy
I’m pretty sure he makes the opposite argument at some point, that essentially you can fake it till you make it. It’s been a while since I read up on this. I only half cared in ethics and philosophy
@monsterislandcolonizer @Griffith @BowsacNoodle @ceo_of_monoeye_dating
Yes, it's a framing problem to be sure. But you also have to understand that humans ARE NOT ROBOTS.