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.
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.
I understand that. You understand that. I do not bank on all good natured decent people understanding that. I choose blue.
@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.
Guess I’m dead 😵
@BowsacNoodle @Griffith @LukeAlmighty RIP Bowsac :gura_pain:
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.
Follow
@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.
@karna @Griffith @LukeAlmighty @BowsacNoodle @ceo_of_monoeye_dating Here's the court session
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...
@Frondeur @LukeAlmighty @aceattorneybot @BowsacNoodle @karna @ceo_of_monoeye_dating The radical atheist known as Frondeur.
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...
@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...
@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...
he wuh on he way to churr errday finna get he life back on track 
@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 @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. :peko_normal:
thanks for conceding...i know that took a lot for you...
@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...
@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.
@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 @LukeAlmighty @aceattorneybot @BowsacNoodle @karna @ceo_of_monoeye_dating You can also just not join the suicide pact of the blue button.
@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 I don't have any experience in that department.
@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.
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating @Griffith @LukeAlmighty @aceattorneybot @BowsacNoodle @Frondeur @karna wtf even is the op question? unlike prisoner’s dilemma, “everyone picks red” and “everyone picks blue” outcomes are identical, so there’s never a reason to pick 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.
@BowsacNoodle @Griffith @LukeAlmighty @aceattorneybot @Frondeur @karna @ceo_of_monoeye_dating i'd prefer those people to be smart enough to see the clear "everybody wins risk free" strategy
@BowsacNoodle @Frondeur @Griffith @LukeAlmighty @aceattorneybot @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @karna wait, did you mean to say red instead of blue?
>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...
@ceo_of_monoeye_dating @Frondeur @BowsacNoodle @Griffith @LukeAlmighty @aceattorneybot @karna the correct choice is to kill politicians and return to mercantilism
@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...
The dullest of mind masturbation
@LukeAlmighty @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @BowsacNoodle The problem is, the alternative is you risk your life for people who literally can't see the rational option. It's like choosing to stay inside a burning building because not everyone can see the fire exit labels.
If you choose red, you live. If everyone chooses red, everyone lives. Anyone choosing blue is gambling with their life over nothing. There's no morality to it. You don't *have* to enter a suicide pact with other people, and if no one does, everyone lives.
If you choose red, you live. If everyone chooses red, everyone lives. Anyone choosing blue is gambling with their life over nothing. There's no morality to it. You don't *have* to enter a suicide pact with other people, and if no one does, everyone lives.
@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