ckjd

@earthgzr @minordissent @liminal_warmth You're not doing a very good job explaining how either of my probabilities is wrong. Insults aren't a great argument.

@ckjd @minordissent @liminal_warmth the fact that you think you did math is a small red flag the bigger one is that you think decision theory's entire thesis is "just pick higher number"

I hope all the red button pushers will enjoy their new world without empathetic and prosocial people (and significantly fewer women). Good luck with that

@earthgzr @minordissent @liminal_warmth Please explain how the math is wrong.

@ckjd @minordissent @liminal_warmth 142% probability that you've never taken a probability course

@earthgzr @minordissent @liminal_warmth 1-in-8 BILLION chance that you change the global outcome, vs 100% chance that your baby still has a parent...

@minordissent @liminal_warmth *jumping in an icy lake to save a child* sociopath: "why are you trying to kill yourself?"

@ScarcityMan @fimbres_paul @smojjingmcgee @MarkChangizi "But what kind of person would vote for candidate B? It is precisely this element of responsibility that red button pushers are refusing to see" What kind of person would choose the button which enters you into a crazy death lottery, and then claim someone else is responsible?

@ckjd @fimbres_paul @smojjingmcgee @MarkChangizi Should have said, red candidate kills everyone if blue loses, not blue candidate kills everyone if it loses. Killing only exists because the red candidate/button exists.

— The Suicide Button — No need for a Red button at all. Just have a single (Blue) button labeled, “Press me to commit suicide by midnight.” And then in fine print it says, “Guaranteed to work unless more than 50% of humans end up pressing their button.” Are you suggesting it’s now selfish to not press the button? Because that’s exactly the Red button answer in the equivalent Res/Blue button case.

@ScarcityMan @fimbres_paul @smojjingmcgee @MarkChangizi No, it is blue candidate kills blue voters if red wins. In the original problem, if I choose to vote red, that doesn't sign you up for the death lottery. Choosing blue is what signs you up. Choosing "I want to maybe die" cannot be placed at the feet of red voters.

You are not getting it. I really don't think you understand the premise. Blue candidate kills no one if it wins. Red candidate kills if it wins. Blue candidate kills if it loses. Red candidate doesn't kill if it loses. So why would anyone vote to lose? Do you vote for something hoping to lose the vote? No... You vote for the thing you want and expect and hope to win. So because it's a VOTE, Blue voters are voting and hoping and expecting everyone to live... They are rooting for that outcome because it is how they are voting. They are not hedging and hiding, they are voting their beliefs. Red voters, if we extend the same courtesy, are voting to kill anyone who doesn't agree with them, because what they WIN if they WIN THE VOTE.

@ScarcityMan @fimbres_paul @smojjingmcgee @MarkChangizi Yes I understand. And to make it the same as the original problem, it must be: Candidate A (blue) will kill everyone who votes for A, unless X amount vote for A. You would be insane to vote for A. Red is not a vote for kill. Blue is a vote to intentionally enter a death lottery

No, candidate A is the blue button, candidate B is the red button. Candidate B will kill everyone who didn't vote for it if it wins. It's exactly isomorphic to the original problem, just another way to think about it that highlights what red buttoners miss. If red buttoners win, it will kill everyone who pushed blue. And red buttoners are fine with this, apparently because they don't care about anyone other than themselves and think that a collective voting contest with collective consequences somehow doesn't require them to be concerned with the collective. It's madness.

@ALifeAfterTech @DellAnnaLuca Also, voting blue has a 1 in 8 billion chance of saving something. Not 50%. "Voting blue has a 50% chance of saving something"

@ALifeAfterTech @DellAnnaLuca Am I to assume that "infinite value" refers to human life? In that case, voting red has a 100% chance to save a human life, and voting blue has a 100% chance to enter a crazy death lottery where you are gambling human lives.

Red voters advise their kids (and others) to vote red, so they’re saved for sure. Blue voters advise their kids (and others) to vote blue, thereby gambling with their lives. But somehow red voters would be those caring less about their kids and others in general? The idea that blue is the moral choice hinges on the unwarranted assumption that blue wins with certainty.

@CuqueQ @AnnaKent99341 @kacchaket @leap_dog Yes, it can be all at the same time - that doesn't change the math. Imagining you are the final vote makes it easier to understand what the probabilities really are. You have a 1-in-8-billion chance of changing the "Randian post-apocalypse. They might as well 100% have a parent.

@ckjd @AnnaKent99341 @kacchaket @leap_dog So number one it all has to be at the same time, no communication, and secondly, don't you think it's in your best interest as a parent to make sure that your child grows up in, you know, modern civilization? The best time to live in? Instead of a Randian post-apocalypse

i think it really does say a lot about you whether you instinctively conceive of the red button as the kill millions button, or the blue button as the kill yourself button

@keyokkud @SlayerOmega Everyone doesn't have to press red. People are free to choose the blue "Please enter me into a crazy suicide lottery" button if they wish. I don't think it's a sensible choice to enter a suicide casino gamble, but that is everyone's right if they wish to.

@SlayerOmega everyone pressing red is even worse of a gamble, u realize that right

why the fuck would you press red? everyone survives if we press blue, it's guaranteed survival for everyone, by default everyone should be pressing blue, without even needing to coordinate. default state of human should be to want and guarantee best outcome, not settling.

@ScarcityMan @fimbres_paul @smojjingmcgee @MarkChangizi "candidate B will murder everyone who voted for candidate A" is the exact opposite though. It would be "candidate A will kill everyone who votes for him, unless X amount vote for him". You would be insane to vote for him.

There are an infinite number of ways to rephrase the premise, but each rephrasing carries the bias the person rephrasing wishes to impart on the voters. That's the main issue I have with the suggestion from the OP. I went too far by suggesting it didn't match the premise, which it technically does, but in spirit, I believe it doesn't. Here's another rephrasing to make my point: Everyone must vote for one of two candidates in a first past the poll contest. They have identical platforms except that candidate B will murder everyone who voted for candidate A if he wins. Everyone can just save themselves by voting for candidate B, right? But what kind of person would vote for candidate B? It is precisely this element of responsibility that red button pushers are refusing to accept or see, or cannot comprehend, and the OP suggestion makes it MORE difficult, not less difficult. Not intended as a literal parable about --insert modern candidate here--.

@smojjingmcgee @MarkChangizi @ScarcityMan "Everyone must vote". Therefore pressing red is the same as not pushing blue in a 1-button scenario.

@MarkChangizi @ScarcityMan It is not 'formally the same'. If someone pressed neither button and red won, they'd die. Pressing the red button prevents you dying, whereas your scenario, no-one dies UNLESS they press a button. It's embarrassing how many of you can't even understand the original scenario.

@ALifeAfterTech @DellAnnaLuca If it was a coin toss, I would agree with you. It's not a coin toss though. You have a 1 in 8 billion chance of changing the outcome in a positive way. The math doesn't lie.

@ckjd @DellAnnaLuca If you think they are they same then that explains where the issue comes from. Pushing red to vote for killing your child and each of the other 8 billion people on a coin toss is psychopathic.

@ALifeAfterTech @DellAnnaLuca It is the identical scenario. If you think the scenario is different, that's possibly where the issue comes from. Pressing Blue and voting to kill your child's parent for a 1-in-8 billion casino gamble is pretty negligent.

@ckjd @DellAnnaLuca That's a different scenario. You wouldn't know you're last. You don't know if more blue votes are needed or it its impossible. But even if you did know you were last but didn't know the current vote, voting blue is still the correct moral choice.

@ALifeAfterTech @DellAnnaLuca Imagine you are the very last person to press. There is Blue, a 1-in-8-billion chance you can affect the outcome and a real chance of death; or Red, a 100% chance your child will still have a parent to look after them.

@DellAnnaLuca Even if you can dicuss it, you will not know how your child voted. They may not listen to. They may think it is a game. They may be unduly influenced by others or social media. They might make a mistake. Is that a chance you want to take?

@ImNotOwned @marcusdiazcom You can't tell your kids to pick the option that is potential suicide vs being 100% ok. That is negligent to the extreme. I do not believe you actually mean this.

@HomelessEconomy @JoelDPN @ChrisPacia That's crazy. Think about the first blue button pusher. It introduces DEATH. Blue is literally the button that kills people.

@ckjd @JoelDPN @ChrisPacia Red button pushing is what makes the lottery suicidal at all

If you vote differently in these scenarios congrats you are irrational. Time to do some introspection and figure out why you respond emotionally to things rather than logically.

@plasticolicious @UsingLyft It's actuallly really easy to think about this scenario: Imagine you are the very last person to press. There is Blue, a 1-in-8-billion chance you can affect the outcome and a real chance of death; or Red, a 100% chance you will be alive to be with the people you love.

@UsingLyft Why on Earth would you press red if there’s a non-zero chance the people you love pressed blue?

Why would anyone just not press red lmao. What would make you go there and be like “yeah I’m gonna play this crazy game and risk it all by pressing blue?” Why? Why would you do that

@kacchaket @leap_dog But up to a certain point, you are contributing to the problem. Every blue vote is adding another death.

@ckjd @leap_dog Voting blue is trying to save everyone else who votes blue. You don’t know who they are, but you know they surely exist, because there will always be others who think like you: That others’ lives are as precious as your own

@kacchaket @leap_dog Who is the first blue voter trying to save? Voting blue is literally, and I mean *literally* introducing death.

@ckjd @leap_dog Blue = “I will try to save others from dying in this ‘lottery’, even if it means I die” Red = “I will contribute to others dying in this ‘lottery’, as long as it means I live” Dying isn’t a worse result than casting my vote to kill the very ones who’d risk their lives to save me