• @rational_lib@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    194 days ago

    Yell to the guy on the other side that I’m going to pull the lever, so he’d better not.

    Then let it go because that both maximizes global utility and poses the lowest risk of the worst case scenario.

  • @HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    54 days ago

    Yell to the other lever dude that I’m not pulling the lever but fuck those beige dudes, hope they can’t tell i’m lying, run and lay down with the beige dudes, and if I’m lucky they pull their lever too and we get maximum carnage. If lever dude suspects I’m lying and insane, and thus doesn’t pull their lever, at least I won’t have to answer my loved ones’ questions.

  • AlexanderESmith
    link
    fedilink
    13 days ago

    “Killing almost everyone”… okay, but even in that “worst” case, both lever operators loved ones are fine, so it’s not the worst case for them

    All they have to deal with is a little existential PTSD bubbling up occasionally. Whatever, add it to the pile. They can lean on their still alive loved ones in those tough times.

    Also, stay off the fucking tracks, fucks sake.

  • @Peck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    103 days ago

    Well obviously you should pull the lever once the front wheels past the split but before the rear wheels cross it, so that trolley gets off the rails. This way everybody has the chance to survive and you have defensible position during inevitable court hearing.

  • @BenLeMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    43 days ago

    There is no such thing as an “amount of people”. It’s “number of people”. And the question given is basic game theory, just worded to be nasty.

  • @kreskin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    23 days ago

    you find some third way thats not the bad outcomes that are suggested. Theres always possibilities in life and people who say there are not are generally trying to coerce you.

  • AWildMimicAppears
    link
    fedilink
    534 days 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
      133 days 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?!?

      • @Lemming6969@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        53 days ago

        Your simulation seems to only punish selfish actors when that’s not always the case. Doesn’t include natural monopolies, lacks clandestine exploitation, and there’s likely no market capture or saturation. In such a case the only play is to cooperate.