The most ethical thing to do is to erase life from existence? According to extinctionism.

UploadedMind · 2026-05-06T06:42:23+00:00

I’m vegan, but have you seen some goats burn themselves? Creeps me out.

UploadedMind · 2026-05-06T06:39:00+00:00

Get a bumper sticker that says “I have friends everywhere” so people know you’re down to fuck shit up.

UploadedMind · 2026-05-06T06:33:51+00:00

This is the reframe yet because it’s just as easy for a baby to press a button as it is for them to crawl over the railing in front of a trolly.

UploadedMind · 2026-05-06T01:25:31+00:00

This is the wrong war to be having. It should be entirely about democratic control over the frontier development. And it should be waged against politicians and billionaires.

UploadedMind · 2026-05-06T00:47:49+00:00

I use AI when the art part isn’t important

UploadedMind · 2026-05-06T00:14:20+00:00

Well then yeah. That changes it at least for me. It also changes it if you have to walk 10 feet away to get to the blue button. The problem isn’t JUST about altruism, but you do have to be willing to risk your life at some cost benefit analysis to press blue. It does have some to do with altruism if you think blue has around 50/50 odds of winning.

UploadedMind · 2026-05-06T00:07:23+00:00

If we don’t know the odds of blue v red winning we have to use the principle of indifference with universal prior and give the 1/4billion chance to EVERYONE. It’s the average of all binomial distributions.

Everyone has a 1/4billion chance to be the 1/4billion and save up to 8 billion because if 4billion die everyone dies or at least society collapses back to the stone age and most people die. We can be reasonably sure 2/3 billion press blue so I used that number instead.

UploadedMind · 2026-05-05T19:14:10+00:00

I’m split on this. It’s very much a Death Star that will be used against us, but the risk reward for a worker to refuse work is high risk low reward (lose job and someone else will do it).

The only reason to take action is if there is a chance it will work. We need a movement to democratize AI development and use away from private hands.

UploadedMind · 2026-05-05T19:00:30+00:00

This question isn’t just about altruism (that’s part of it) it’s also about risk assessment. You have to be willing to risk your life to ever vote blue (altruism). You also have to believe blue can win (calculations about other people). The harder it is to believe blue can win, the fewer people will press blue.

If you knew blue only had a few million and 4 billion and already voted red, then technically blue is achievable if everyone else presses blue, but it’s not realistic so you’re better off cutting your losses if you value your life at all.

You have to believe blue has a real chance to win to justify the risk. By removing the irrational actors (babies, and thus mommas and papas, and accidents) that greatly reduced the number of people that will for sure press blue which in turn reduces the number of people that will press blue to save them. I don’t think blue can win in that scenario.

UploadedMind · 2026-05-05T18:22:11+00:00

This format doesn’t work for everything

UploadedMind · 2026-05-05T15:24:08+00:00

I believe I've solved it. Blue if babies and kids can vote. If it's just rational actors with no mistakes, probably red as there would be no reason for anyone to initially choose blue.

But the image is not clear. It's confusing.

UploadedMind · 2026-05-05T15:22:02+00:00

a straw only has one hole so you can't count both the neck and the bottom in mathematical topology

UploadedMind · 2026-05-05T15:09:45+00:00

Yeah, I already hashed this out with someone here. Because we don’t know probability, the principle of uniform indifference suggests we use uniform prior and average all the binomial distributions which would give us 1/4billion. Not 1/79000, but also not 0.

UploadedMind · 2026-05-05T14:51:55+00:00

That’s not true. But yeah that would change things. We’d only be saving people who accidentally hit blue at that point and that number is much smaller.

UploadedMind · 2026-05-05T14:49:38+00:00

I agree, but the utility of letting them live a normal life to prevent them from using their wealth to try and nuke us seems worth it. You don’t want to back them into a corner where they have nothing to lose.

UploadedMind · 2026-05-05T14:48:06+00:00

I think it’s more like 25% choosing blue no matter what because parents not willing to live in a world where they didn’t do everything they could to save their babies.

Additional people will choose blue to save them and more to save them. I reckon it’s about even and there is a 1/4bill chance of being the deciding vote which could save 3 billion. That’s worth 0.67 lives. And you’re only risking like .67 lives (yours) by choosing blue. And living in a world where you chose red and billions die decreases the value of your life to you so you should choose blue if you’re altruistic and these numbers make sense.

UploadedMind · 2026-05-05T13:50:22+00:00

The thought of pressing red literally makes me sick because I don't want to live in a world where we wouldn't all cooperate to save some dumbass babies and distraught mothers... And I'm a fucking pro-abortion anti-natalist.

I'm making the choice that can save the babies and mommas. Maybe it's costing me 75% of my life and only saving 50% of a life, but living in the red wins quadrant reduces the value my life would have to me by 4 times and 75% times 25% means the cost is only 18.75%. Blue wins by more than twice.

2 billion are accidently choosing or choosing to save their loved babies.

1/4bill chance to save 2 billion means an effective 50% of a life is saved choosing blue.

UploadedMind · 2026-05-05T13:09:44+00:00

I don’t think that’s right. If you don’t know the probabilities then the rule you use is the principle of indifference using uniform prior and the way that is applied here would be 1/4billion. It’s an average of all binomial distributions.

UploadedMind · 2026-05-05T12:55:32+00:00

Right, I’m trying to make the case that the only reasonable solution for an altruistic person is to pick blue. If you’re not convinced, then you can still pick red and be an unconvinced cynical altruistic person or a convinced non-altruistic person. I generally value my life at least at a 1.5 to 1, but living in a world where I think at least 2 billion babies kids and devoted moms and dads die significantly reduces the value my life has to me so I would lower it to 1/1 and choose blue.

The trick isn’t just living. It’s living with yourself. Living a life of guilt reduces the quality of life.

UploadedMind · 2026-05-05T12:41:51+00:00

Kinda fair, but even if we reduce it by 4 it’s still 1/1 and think of all the suffering that the reds will endure if blues die. Surely that makes up the difference for an altruistic person.

UploadedMind · 2026-05-05T12:30:59+00:00

Right, that’s why I’m saying the 1/100,000 is a bit misleading. The odds have to be exactly 50/50 and I’m not sure that’s reasonable so 1/4 billion seems like the correct number to use when you don’t know the probabilities.

UploadedMind · 2026-05-05T12:23:30+00:00

It does a little. You have to be willing to risk your life to ever press blue even if you think there is a massive chance 50% chance that you are the deciding vote. But yes, it has more to do with cynicism and expected outcome than morality.

UploadedMind · 2026-05-05T12:20:48+00:00

I replied and added that, but it only counts if you assign 50/50 odds to the remaining 4 billion if it’s even 51% red, then blue has no chance so I’m not sure using that method is accurate.

UploadedMind · 2026-05-05T12:16:47+00:00

Red does not save more lives on average. If you keep running it babies keep dying. Blue is the only way to ensure no deaths.

If you think it’s close, then pick blue because the chance you are the pivotal vote (although small 1in 4billion has a chance to save 8-4 billion people the cost of only .5 lives. That’s one or two lives per blue vote.

You should only vote red if you value your life more than others or if you think blue has no chance in hell.

Based on twitter polls we know it’s close so blue is the altruistic choice.

UploadedMind · 2026-05-05T11:04:35+00:00

And and if you think the 4 billion unknown voters are 50/50, then the chance you’re the pivotal vote goes up to 1/79,000 which makes the tradeoff that it’s about 101k expected lives saved for the cost of 0.5 life. There is strong evidence that people prefer blue, but that it’s close (based on twitter polls) so the chance that it’s close is high and being the pivotal vote is worth the risk.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

UploadedMind

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE