• somewhathinged@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 hours ago

    If you think about this for any length of time and actually imagine this scenario, you realise you don’t pull the lever and it’s not even close.

    • socsa@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 minutes ago

      Wrong. You pick the obviously wrong moral stance and then aggressively yell about it on the internet. The more obvious it becomes that you are wrong, the louder you yell. This protects your ego from introspection.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      31 minutes ago

      You realize this is your family watching you make the decision to have their vehicle run over a loved one? There’s a possibility they all live if you pull it.

      • Famko@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 minutes ago

        Or if you pull it, then they see you make the decision to risk their lives to kill three other people.

        What is better, three lives lost or one life lost?

  • m0darn@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    I think these scenarios might be easier to analyze if we made them a bit more realistic.

    This an analogy for military intervention. If we empower our military to be proactive, we can save one "good guy"TM by killing 3 bystanders. But if NATO’s adversaries are participating too we lose 3 of our "good guy"TM

  • AWildMimicAppears@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    9 hours ago

    for the longest time, i did know that game theory did not have anything to do with “games” and that it is somehow connected to the prisoners dilemma, but the concept as such wasn’t very clear to me. If you are like my former me, take 30 minutes out of your day and visit https://ncase.me/trust/ to learn and play around with game theory; it’s a great webpage and it’s pretty good fun all around.

    • solstice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I did a few game theory simulations in college and they were always real interesting. In one of them for example, it was a multiplayer game, with multiple interactions. I think it was to simulate global trade basically: you could cooperate with as many players as you want and each time you cooperate you both get a point. If you defect then you get two and they get none. However, all the players could see what the other players are doing, so if you defected they would know and probably would play (trade) with you. The best way to win was to form as many connections as possible and fully cooperate the whole time.

      I formed maybe like 20-30 connections with other players and didn’t defect. Each point was worth a few cents or something. So I walked out with a check for like $20-$50 or something. Many players walked out with nothing because they cheated too many people too many times and nobody wanted to trade with them.

      Therefore, clearly, the best economic policy is protectionism, tariffs, trade wars, and fucking over both allies and enemies, right? Right?!?

    • batshit@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      For those interested, Veritasium has a very good video on this. It also sort of tells what strategy is optimal to “win”.

  • _bcron@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    10 hours ago

    The outcome from both levers pulled is so steep that it really makes no sense to pull the lever

      • Emerald@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Not really. This would all happen so fast and be emotionally, not logically, driven.

      • _bcron@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 hours ago

        They’ll be thinking the same thing tho and if there is a greater than 20% chance of them pulling the lever it’d be worse in terms of losing family members than not pulling at all.

        But in terms of overall death, not pulling the lever is 1 or 4, and pulling the lever is 4 or 13

  • wabafee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    Do nothing that way you don’t get to jail for murder. All the pressure goes to the other guy. Sue the railway company, guy who pulled the lever and the creator. Another is find a way not to reach to that point.

  • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Unlike the classic prisoners dilemma, this isn’t a nash equilibrium. When I know that the other person pulls their switch, I’d improve my outcome by not pulling mine. Compare to the prisoners dilemma, where not snitching when the other side snitches earns you five years in prison.

    • UmeU@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      16 hours ago

      This was super funny, this person has a great career ahead of her. Very Tim and Eric style obscure indie comedy, I loved it.

  • Blackout@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    109
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    20 hours ago

    If these are tracks in the US then I just understaff the engineers and maintenance teams and the train derails before I have to make a decision, checkmate.

    • matlag@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 hours ago

      If these tracks are in the US, so I am. So I shoot the other guy with the gun(s) I usually carry around when I go out and then pull the lever.