landon

@sbjosh02 @cremieuxrecueil @RokoMijic @nosilverv 50%+1 blue is higher probability than 99.5% red

@cremieuxrecueil @RokoMijic @nosilverv would you really expect that the majority of people in the world would pick blue?

Exceeded the target. Haven't looked at scores yet, but will note that reds were *much* less accurate when it came to identifying the threshold to save everyone. For red, it's 100%. For blue, it's 50%+1. Since this is obvious, I think the reds might just be partisan-brained.

@TheLlamaBro @luther_snell @minordissent @cinnamontoastk I have more faith in humanity than you seem to

@schemathingz @luther_snell @minordissent @cinnamontoastk I have bad news for you, if you don’t choose red, it’s not gonna go well

This red button/blue button discourse is wild. 100% red saves everyone no consequence 51% of blue saves everyone no consequence 51% red kills all of blue but they frame it like its blues fault they had to kill them even though red is the only choice that causes anyone to die.

@_space_punk_ I also like your reframe that it's not about being personally moral - we're actually banking on a baseline of love that would kick in across everybody

@_space_punk_ Exactly. People either imagine that the lizard brain's desire to live will take over, or no-greater-love-than-this will. I'd gamble on the second.

I think this is a fascinating argument to hear solely from the red side because I genuinely believe that the second it stops being a hypothetical and one is actually presented with the option, they'd universally push blue

@corsaren @DanielleFong I think I agree. Zero-cost displays of goodwill are inherently cheap signals, and usually the displays that we see are manufactured to create that impression. So now we have a bad proxy of "I see goodwill -> must be fake"

The worst mind virus the right ever invented was their pathological hatred for “virtue signaling”. Very toxic for the soul to train yourself to distrust displays of goodwill and even find them actively repulsive. You fools. The failure of leftist wokes was a ~lack~ of virtue.

@Apocaloptimist5 I didn't think they were correlated until this. It surprises me how many "rationalists" have such a narrow view of rationality.

The red and blue button experiment does an excellent job of exposing how many people equate "rationality" with being a psychopath.

@Gilbeezyskit93 @bttldog @soychotic Everyone could exercise and quit smoking too. Any plan that requires everyone to do the right thing is naive.

@bttldog @soychotic Everyone could literally just push red.

If you picked red, you’re no longer able to complain about the US not being like Japan

@Lupes20635 @pipebombxoxo @soychotic "Logically correct" independent of consequences beyond one's own self interests. What a narrow view of logic

@pipebombxoxo @soychotic Red is the most logically correct choice, but she did raise a good point on how immoral that choice would be. So there is a valid argument for blue

@luther_snell @TheLlamaBro @minordissent @cinnamontoastk If you think only low IQ people would pick blue, then you don't have a great internal model of other people's motivations or thought patterns. This is essentially a theory of mind problem.

@TheLlamaBro @minordissent @cinnamontoastk Among people smart enough to know what they are doing, sure, but remember we are talking the whole world, much of which has a very low IQ, by twitter egghead standards. Lots of them would probably just push randomly.

@hirschibar @aymanalabdul @MrBeast Either you're bad at modeling how other people are likely to think, or you're willing to accept the loss of anyone who picks blue.

@aymanalabdul @MrBeast Are you kidding?? I want everyone to survive risk free. Means pressing red! I don't want someone to put them self at risk and only be able to be saved if huge numbers if others put themself at risk! The moral choice is red

Everyone on earth takes 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? BE HONEST.

@MuckoDubre123 @cat_pretentious @Joey_FS You can't get 100% of people to agree to anything. For no deaths, you need 100% of people to agree on red, or 51% to agree on blue. Which one seems more likely?

If you have said "Pressing red wont change anything for me" I will no longer trust your instinct about second order effects.

@mhartl Can you help me understand why an individual blue vote needs to be the tiebreaker in order for it to affect the outcome? You mentioned voting - obviously this sort of thinking causes a lot of people to stay home on Election Day, but the result is obviously an aggregate.

@lickofcow @redrummarts Directionally agree, but blue is a mix of lots of people. Low info, grandstanders, conformists, random noise, and the genuinely altruistic. If you're team red, it's easy to single out the cohort that you believe deserves it for making such an obviously stupid choice.

@redrummarts Its the perfect ragebait question because it pits free thinkers and the obstinate against the desperately conformist and well meaning

Everyone who's picking red thinks blue is the suicide button. And everyone who picks blue thinks red is the murder button That's the only conclusion I'm getting from this

@CyberNatural_BC @ExemplaNaturae @wvb98 @skdh Right - those people are the defectors. The blue gamble is that there are enough of us to fend off the defectors. If we fail, then all the prosocial people will be dead.

@ExemplaNaturae @wvb98 @skdh That is true when you factor accidental selection. Blue is the best answer most would do, but I imagine a sizable portion wouldn't trust the majority and choose red.

my takeaway from the red/blue button discussion is that if anyone asks, you say you pressed blue

@SigmaSyndikate @prerat So it's basically the Trolley Problem? People don't want to feel responsible

@prerat 100% called it, people choose whichever option they perceive as "do nothing"

it was interesting that the comments for both of these were full of people saying "see everyone, this OBVIOUSLY clarifies the original problem!!!" not realizing the other poll with the opposite result existed too

@weswinder Maybe an Obsidian wrapper, with collaboration features? Why don't you build it?

why has nobody made open source notion?

@maxkolysh Solved problem at the orchestration level. I use sops + docker env vars myself.

by far the most painful part of using hermes (and openclaw) is secrets management. who is solving this?

@0xlelouch_ In practice, bad things tend to happen to codebases when done this way. It's hard to tell when there's already a resource that does most of what you want when you have to scan hundreds of websocket message definitions. Doable, but I've never seen it done well.

If WebSockets enable real-time bidirectional communication, why not use WebSockets for all client-server communication instead of HTTP?