Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Absurd Trolley Problems

neal.fun

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 951 posts

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#411

Post by mcv »

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #379
smorrebrod wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personnaly, some answers were swayed by thinking about these legal consequences for situations like: - Annoying the driver of the trolley for my enjoyment - A 50% chance of killing 2 people or a 10% chance of killing 10 people - Killing 5 people now or 5 people in the future - Killing 1 cat or 5 lobsters

I chose to annoy the driver because the prompt already told me that I wanted to do it.

I chose that I had free will and my decision wasn't predetermined, and I used that free will to not annoy the driver.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#412

Post by bigDinosaur »

mcv wrote: post #387
ptsneves wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my point of view trams have no advantages over buses. On the other hand they need lots of special purpose infrastructure and often condition road traffic rules terribly, like forcing traffic lights instead of roundabouts. Actually I am open to hear the advantages of trams.

Running on rails is super efficient once they are in place. Less resistance, less wear and tear. For high-frequency routes, they really are great. But for new routes, trolley buses are probably a lot cheaper to set up. Maybe use trolley buses first, and only switch to trams once it's clear that this really is a high demand, high frequency route that's not going to go away.

One of the major problems with anything that isn't on rails is that it is easy to make go away. Unironically one of the reasons for trams is that it's harder to rip up the tracks and delete the service entirely as opposed to bus routes which can vanish in a single day or be altered in incredibly dumb ways. Of course, if you're sufficiently destructive you can rip up any infrastructure.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#413

Post by mcv »

Markoff wrote: post #340
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're implying that you'd go to jail for the lives of 4 people (or that people should), but recent experience has shown people won't even wear a mask to save other people's lives.

Is there any proof wearing a mask save ANY lives? People talk about this as if it were some fact, it's usually same people believing safe and effective vaccines, who quickly forgot vaccines were supposed to stop transmission, stop symptoms, they just keep pushing goal posts, while reality if you look at stats in highly vaxxed countries is that vaccines do really nothing anymore.

You spread a lot less virus if you wear a mask. Cheap masks don't protect you, but they do protect others from you. Countries where everybody immediately wore masks had far less cases than those where a lot of people didn't. The whole mask issue was the ultimate test in altruism: do you accept slight inconvenience that might save other people's lives? A lot of people failed.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#415

Post by mcv »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #295
rcoveson wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how that trivializes the problem. With that additional consideration, the options are: 1. Let 5 people die and 1 live, and you probably don't have any legal consequences. 2. Save 5 people, cause the death of 1, and you probably go to jail. So the thing that made the answer trivial was the introduction of legal consequences that affect you personally? Doesn't the difference of 4 deaths dwarf that?

You're implying that you'd go to jail for the lives of 4 people (or that people should), but recent experience has shown people won't even wear a mask to save other people's lives.

They should have made the mask issue one of the tests. Do you let 4 people die, or do you choose to save them but wear something uncomfortable?

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#416

Post by eurasiantiger »

The ending is a false dichotomy.

It’s likely the universe is deterministic, but that does not mean everything is predetermined: it just means the universe is mechanistically governed by certain rules.

Those rules create a fractal spectrum of causal events not unlike those seen in the Game of Life. From the interplay of those causalities emerges an ordered bubble of discrete, relatively-localized energy-matter we perceive as our physical universe—and possibly countless others like it.

Re: Absurd Trolley Problems

#420

Post by somedude895 »

jgerrish wrote: post #363

This kind of highlights a subtle interactive design or user experience component of the Trolley problem. Part of the Trolley Problem is that the choice is between an action or inaction. But these problems, or the first one at least, have two buttons. So you're making a choice. Yeah, some might argue it's a technicality. But what if you put the Do Nothing choice on a timer? What if you made it an asynchronous "Problem…

Would be great if you had to actually pull a lever and hold it, being able to release it at any time. The cartoon figures' faces change depending on whether they're currently in danger or not. Then see how many people change their mind mid pull like with the best friend or the cat/lobster one.
Post reply on HN