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

If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive

shankwiler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 333 posts

Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive

#51

Post by imoverclocked »

chias wrote: post #39
vmg12 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dilemma is that a lot of people will press blue so if red gets above 50% a large number of selfless but not game-theory aware people will die.

but why would anybody choose blue? there is no moral benefit to doing so. If you altered the game to say that only some fraction of the population get the choice, and everyone who doesn't get the choice is assumed blue (or, is killed if less than 50% of voters choose blue) then there's some question to be explored here. But at it stands there is literally no reason to choose blue.

There will always be someone who chooses blue. Choosing red is choosing to kill them.

Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive

#52

Post by empthought »

bennettnate5 wrote: post #37
eesmith wrote: post #7

These sorts of problems assume that actions have no consequences beyond the immediate decision. These tests, run in places which have higher long-term expectation of social connections, give different results than in the US. In the world where I don't want to live in that world, so blue for me. And it's the fault of everyone who pressed red should I die.

This doesn't seem to be a game that tries to be particularly clever--one button could kill you, the other certainly won't. Trusting that nearly everyone will avoid pressing the button that could kill them seems a reasonable assumption, and it's not necessarily an indication of a lack of altruism.

One button could kill you — if and only if enough people press the other button.

The other button certainly won’t kill you, but will kill everyone who pressed the first button — if and only if enough people besides you press it.

Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive

#53

Post by troglodytetrain »

tristanj wrote: post #29

This question has multiple layers of thinking: 1. People who can't read pick randomly. 2. People who can read, but are too dumb to model or care about other people pick red. 3. People with enough intelligence for basic cognitive empathy pick blue. 4. People a little smarter and think through game theory overall pick red, and think they are smart for doing so. 5. People smarter than #4 and capable of seeing the big pi…

Your entire logical chain, and your self importance, well, it explains why I'm always picking red. If you win and most pick blue, I'm safe, otherwise, I'm also safe.

You get to feel intellectually superior choosing the only option that can lead you to die. The simple answer is everyone should pick red.

Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive

#54

Post by ertgbnm »

wavemode wrote: post #11

This is like a prisoner's dilemma, but with no payoff for the risky option. In a prisoner's dilemma, you can choose a risky option (stay quiet), but the potential reward is that if the other prisoner also stays quiet then you both go completely free. But if one prisoner instead speaks up and accuses the other prisoner, the accuser gets a short sentence and the one who stayed quiet gets a max sentence. But in this sce…

The downside of redding is that some portion of the world probably dies and you now have to live in that worse world that if you and 50% of the rest of the world has just blued, would not have happened.

Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive

#55

Post by 0x_rs »

I don't like how the question is setup, both in wording and scenario. Saying "everyone will die unless >50% press blue" sounds more impactful. And pressing red is a free win in this scenario making it a nonchoice. Threshold not being announced or red having some condition would make it more interesting (and at the same time, boring).. unless the point of the question is not to make people discuss blue vs red, but why you should make an irrational decision.

Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive

#56

Post by eesmith »

bennettnate5 wrote: post #37
eesmith wrote: post #7

These sorts of problems assume that actions have no consequences beyond the immediate decision. These tests, run in places which have higher long-term expectation of social connections, give different results than in the US. In the world where I don't want to live in that world, so blue for me. And it's the fault of everyone who pressed red should I die.

This doesn't seem to be a game that tries to be particularly clever--one button could kill you, the other certainly won't. Trusting that nearly everyone will avoid pressing the button that could kill them seems a reasonable assumption, and it's not necessarily an indication of a lack of altruism.

One button means you almost certainly contributed to homicide, since the odds of everyone pressing red is essentially 0%.

The other one does not contribute to homicide.

The right answer, by the way, is to not press either button. "The only winning move is not to play."

Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive

#57

Post by hx8 »

wavemode wrote: post #11

This is like a prisoner's dilemma, but with no payoff for the risky option. In a prisoner's dilemma, you can choose a risky option (stay quiet), but the potential reward is that if the other prisoner also stays quiet then you both go completely free. But if one prisoner instead speaks up and accuses the other prisoner, the accuser gets a short sentence and the one who stayed quiet gets a max sentence. But in this sce…

In The Prisoner's Dilemma, the point is that the best option (Both Cooperate) only works if people are willing to work together. It almost always ends up in the worst option (Both Defect). What this points out is that purely selfish actions can lead to non-optimal results for both the collective and the individual.

This expands on The Prisoner's Dilemma by increasing the population and increasing the stakes. We're still thinking about cooperate/defect actions, but we're also forced to acknowledge that not everyone is a rational actor and we cannot relay on the all-defect option as would be the expected outcome of The Prisoner's Dilemma.

Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive

#59

Post by allajfjwbwkwja »

tristanj wrote: post #29

This question has multiple layers of thinking: 1. People who can't read pick randomly. 2. People who can read, but are too dumb to model or care about other people pick red. 3. People with enough intelligence for basic cognitive empathy pick blue. 4. People a little smarter and think through game theory overall pick red, and think they are smart for doing so. 5. People smarter than #4 and capable of seeing the big pi…

(6) isn't correct. Left alone, everyone rational would pick red because it's the only logical option. You trying to convince them otherwise might end up getting 49% of the population killed.

You should try to get everyone to pick red, not blue.

Re: If more than 50% press blue, everyone survives. Red pressers always survive

#60

Post by croes »

wavemode wrote: post #11

This is like a prisoner's dilemma, but with no payoff for the risky option. In a prisoner's dilemma, you can choose a risky option (stay quiet), but the potential reward is that if the other prisoner also stays quiet then you both go completely free. But if one prisoner instead speaks up and accuses the other prisoner, the accuser gets a short sentence and the one who stayed quiet gets a max sentence. But in this sce…

They payoff is, you know you are not the reason why the people who pressed the blue button died.

Blue risk their lives to safe others, red safe themselves.

Blue won’t get survivor’s guilt

Post reply on HN