Depends on the loved one, tbh π€·πΌββοΈ
this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
1331 points (99.2% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
26949 readers
3079 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This guy is already implying that youll like it better if 3 randoms die as 1 loved one, he's choosing for you already in the explanation πππ
Yeah, would work better if there was one stranger in the middle
More challenging if there's only one person on the middle tracks.
This is only superficially a prisoner's dilemma. In a true one, you cannot get a better result for yourself no matter what the other person does, but here if you assume the other person pulled the lever, there is no reason to pull the lever yourself.
To fix this, you can have 4 relatives on the trolley, and 5 of the opposite faction way back on the middle track. Both do nothing, 1 relative of each is killed. One guy switches the lever, their relatives are all fine, other guy loses 5. Both switch, crash with all 8 relatives on the trolley dead.
I see what you're trying to do and you're not necessarily wrong, but you're kinda perpetuating the attitude that inspired someone to make this meme in the first place
I'm not sure I follow. Should this meme's creator not have been inspired?
Touche. But no, my point was more of a haphazard reflection on how both the Trolley Problem and Prisoner's Dilemma are (by design) built on the idea of reducing human life and/or morality and empathy down to a math problem. It is a method of thought that has its purposes, sure, but I think too many people make that their default setting, which makes dehumanization more common, even if subconsciously. Idk man, I'm going through some stuff
Edit: Fixed a pretty bad typo
Given that this problem is given during corporate interviews ... it probably screens for the requisite level of sociopathy.
for the longest time, i did know that game theory did not have anything to do with βgamesβ and that it is somehow connected to the prisoners dilemma, but the concept as such wasnβt 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; itβs a great webpage and itβs pretty good fun all around.
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?!?
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.
load more comments
(4 replies)
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
How much did I like that one guy really.
Are the 5 people on the opposong trolley worthy of death? Will killing them outweigh losing my loved ones?
Or is the one loved one ill save my really hot 1st cousin?
Because with the rest of the family dead, we can live happily ever after without any annoying incest complaints.
ΰ² β _β ΰ²
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This isn't philosophy anymore, it's just game theory
it's interdisciplinary.
load more comments
(5 replies)
wow what an excellent day in the neighbourhood
i sure hope I won't be faced with an ethical dilemma in the very near future
This was super funny, this person has a great career ahead of her. Very Tim and Eric style obscure indie comedy, I loved it.
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.
Just kill them all
with a knife or whatever
I ban trolleys. Everyone walks.
Have these folks seen The Good Place? Or are they just approaching the same conclusion by accident?
load more comments
(7 replies)
This feels too high quality for a shit post.
Gotta make sure your fiber intake is decent so you get good quality shit like this
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.
load more comments
(6 replies)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
As many frags as possible
mercifully pulling both levers.
But then how do you kill the remaining two people?
Survivor's guilt
The meaning behind the trolly problem has been entirely eroded at this point.
Theoretically, will a collision cause a breach of the radioactive material that's in the box with my cat? Asking for a friend.
Yes and no.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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^
I think the abstract nature is one of the strengths. If you ask someone a question about military intervention, their pre-existing views towards military intervention will heavily bias their answer.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
I think it's "amount" after the trolley is done squishing them into goo
The outcome from both levers pulled is so steep that it really makes no sense to pull the lever
view more: next βΊ