There has been a heated debate lately over this.
I know there are many popular thought experiments but think this one lead to especially interesting conversations.
So to let OGS in on the fun and also to find out if the result for Go players differs from the general population I’m recreating the poll here. It’s anonymous.
The scenario Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
How to take part in the thought experiment
Simply think about what you would do if you were in the scenario. Try to really imagine this is actually happening and you have to press a button. Tell us the color of the button you would press in the poll below. Please do not change your vote based on either A. the current state of the vote or B. the comments in the thread. Please try to come to your own conclusion before looking at either, please don’t change your vote after looking at that information. If you feel uncertain that you understood everything have a look at the FAQ section.
FAQ
Communication is not possible in the scenario
The amount of people taking part in the scenario will be a large amount (so one billion plus)
Each person who is in this scenario understands the assignment clearly, each person knows that the other participants understand the assignment clearly, each person knows that the other participants know that every participant understands the assignment clearly
Each participant has 5 minutes to make a decision, the final result will be executed exactly when the 5 minutes conclude
If a participant fails to make a decision within 5 minutes then he is not considered for the vote and dies immediately no matter the outcome of the vote
You can only press one time, afterwards the buttons disappear, a second input is not possible
There is no option of “fighting back”
Everyone will be physically able to pick and press the button color they aim for, people unable to participate will not be selected as participants
Unless I am misunderstanding this:
– If you press red, you survive 100%. Everyone else is also free to press “red” on their own choice/volition, so your choice doesn’t really harm anyone else, unless they put themselves at risk by voting blue.
– If you press blue, you survive only based on what other people voted.
So, what’s controvertial or “debate worthy” about this?
I guess if literally everyone in the world is participating that would include infants, people with severe brain damage, etc. Statistically some of these people would press blue, so I guess it might make sense to pick blue to try and save everyone.
If it was only being offered to rational actors who can comprehend the question and the consequences I think red is the clear choice.
This just sounds like the prisonner’s dilemma revisited, which has already been largely studied? I doubt you’ll find a majority of superrational persons.
(or is it an elaborate 4D chess scheme to get back to UI discussions and claim OGS’ play button should be red??)
It’s really a thought experiment, such buttons will never exist, however let’s imagine that they do and that 40% press blue. Then I guess it’s hard to live with the idea that 40% of humanity was exterminated just because they wanted to save everyone’s lives. Especially if one of those is the person you cared most.
For these kinds of experiments it’s most constructive if you think about them like they were real.
You bet
That’s a pretty stark take.
Most technical thinker haha
But I think it adds to the scenario that people pressing the red button are doing something. It always changes the setup a bit if you give people the option to just do nothing.
Personally, I think this has more to do with framing (how questionnaires are worded) instead of the action of doing something. Since it is set up to be private and only two options, and no third option of doing nothing. Hence, it is equivalent to locking everyone and forcing them to choose between the two, which will be equivalent to being forced to do or not to do for the action goes. There will be a difference if you also give a doing nothing option, but the whole questions will have to be changed.
I disagree, your choice isn’t neutral at all. Each red vote is an active step towards blue not reaching the 50% quota to win, putting them at risk. With billions of people in the world it is naive and unrealistic to think that everyone will reason like you and press red. Choosing red is prioritizing your own guaranteed survival while also actively increasing the risk for those who choose blue. On the other hand, blue is the only option where everyone survives if there is cooperation.
You are treating a collective coordination problem as an individual choice risk, but that’s not how it works in this case. The “collective“ part is fundamental to the experiment, you can not reduce it to just you and your own choice because the outcome depends on the distribution of the votes. Saying that blue voters are simply “taking a risk” for no reason ignores that the risk only materializes if enough people choose red.
This is one of the “lobbying” effects. Is it allowed for people to organize lobbying before the “vote”? If it is possible, or the actors are allowed to discuss beforehand, this will change the equation a lot.
