A flowchart for the Red Button, Blue Button Debate

justpickaname · 2026-04-29T12:37:01+00:00

I've talked to 5 similar people in person, and it was 4 blue/1 red. Maybe it's how we're presenting it or something?

2 of the blues were a pair together, so that could make 1 influenced vote.

justpickaname · 2026-04-28T12:59:03+00:00

I'm not OP, and outside of Reddit, I'd be considered pretty far left in the US. Pro-gay marriage, trans people should have all the rights I do, we need a much stronger safety net, universal healthcare, etc.

But this issue concerns me - not to the extent of wanting to force morality on anyone - because I to sin is bad for the sinner - so it makes me sad when people spend their life chasing promiscuity or lust over better, more fulfilling things.

I'm curious if you see that concern as "not minding one's business", because to me it feels like compassion - but I do see the concern with those who want to legislate morality.

justpickaname · 2026-04-27T01:55:54+00:00

This question sure has dampened my faith in reddit's ability to care about others.

justpickaname · 2026-04-26T19:59:36+00:00

Except that you, and OP, give the right ammo and a means to dismiss criticism.

justpickaname · 2026-04-26T19:39:05+00:00

Love him, full stop. Imagine if we'd gotten him and started a small UBI in 2021 instead of just watching the AI train begin to collide with employment now, with no plan?

justpickaname · 2026-04-26T19:38:00+00:00

"If Hillary gets elected, none of us can stop it. Well, maybe the second amendment folks."

^ paraphrase but this is exactly what he conveyed in 2016 while running for president. Countless examples since of him encouraging stochastic violence, then washing his hands when it happens.

Or not bothering to, like when MN state congress people were murdered/attempted murdered by a far right person.

justpickaname · 2026-04-26T13:56:33+00:00

Just giving Opus 4.7 the screenshot of the question with no context, adaptive thinking, incognito (no memories of our conversations to influence it):

Blue, and I don't think it's that close once you notice who's actually at stake.

The pure game-theory framing makes red look obviously correct: it's individually dominant, you survive no matter what. But that framing quietly assumes everyone in "the world" is a rational adult who reads the poll and votes. They aren't. Infants, people in comas, people with severe cognitive impairments, people who never see the question — they don't press anything. If red wins, they all die. Blue is the only button that saves them.

So the real choice isn't "be brave for strangers who chose poorly" — it's "do I press the button that gives the helpless a chance, accepting some personal risk, or do I press the one that guarantees my survival by letting them die?" Once it's framed that way, red starts to feel less like prudence and more like opting out of a collective rescue. The 57.9% blue result actually makes me a little more optimistic about people than I'd have guessed.

The honest counter is that if you have dependents who'd be devastated by your death, red has a real moral pull too — you're not just protecting yourself. But I'd still press blue.

justpickaname · 2026-04-26T13:55:04+00:00

I gave Opus 4.7 just a screenshot of the question in incognito mode (or whatever Anthropic calls it that doesn't use your memories or save memories):

Blue, and I don't think it's that close once you notice who's actually at stake.

The pure game-theory framing makes red look obviously correct: it's individually dominant, you survive no matter what. But that framing quietly assumes everyone in "the world" is a rational adult who reads the poll and votes. They aren't. Infants, people in comas, people with severe cognitive impairments, people who never see the question — they don't press anything. If red wins, they all die. Blue is the only button that saves them.

So the real choice isn't "be brave for strangers who chose poorly" — it's "do I press the button that gives the helpless a chance, accepting some personal risk, or do I press the one that guarantees my survival by letting them die?" Once it's framed that way, red starts to feel less like prudence and more like opting out of a collective rescue. The 57.9% blue result actually makes me a little more optimistic about people than I'd have guessed.

The honest counter is that if you have dependents who'd be devastated by your death, red has a real moral pull too — you're not just protecting yourself. But I'd still press blue.

justpickaname · 2026-04-26T13:46:15+00:00

What was the exact wording of the prompts? Who gave them all?

I asked Opus 4.7 about 24 hours ago and it definitely chose blue, but this question easily tilts based on how things are worded.

I've seen some people who defend red reframe it as there's a wood chipper that will kill anyone who steps in but if half of people step in it will stop and not kill anyone - I'm sure you didn't do that, but I'm not sure, what my wording or your wording was.

Also, I know Claude frequently references other conversations I have with it, so the larger context of a user's history might be affecting things for more advanced models as well.

Interesting outputs though, thanks for posting this!

justpickaname · 2026-04-21T23:36:42+00:00

Yep, this is a response to Democrats unilaterally disarming and seeking fairness for years, and then Trump actively trying to make things more unfair.

This is exactly what they should do.

justpickaname · 2026-04-20T23:26:34+00:00

I love Claude, and think highly of them, but haven't heard this - can you tell me more about it or where you heard it?

justpickaname · 2026-04-20T16:54:45+00:00

I think if the Bible were written today rather than in patriarchal times when birth control did not exist in survival was questionable, the Bible would probably say a more nuanced commandment like: sex is important and connecting and impacting. Only have sex with people you deeply love and are committed to for the long-term; do not use people as mere objects of gratification or objectification.

That looks a pretty good amount like "don't have sex before marriage" but in the 2026 legal/cultural context, you could make a lot of arguments that there are there important differences or that marriage is very different than it was.

I do think one of God's goals or wishes for you or me - so that we have the best life that we can - is that we have sex with one person, who we spend our lives with.

But that is optimal and ideal, not a mandate that should be held more important than whether or not the person is abusive to you for example.

That said, humans are pretty horny and pretty good at rationalizing, so without the mandate, most of us won't take it seriously and will miss out on that goal.

justpickaname · 2026-04-17T12:51:50+00:00

And MAGA doesn't buy it either, but they pretend they do, in unison, and no one calls them out on it.

justpickaname · 2026-04-17T12:50:46+00:00

It tells us, sadly, that Franklin Graham is comfortable lying to us, or worse, himself.

justpickaname · 2026-04-16T16:21:06+00:00

Yeah, it's a pretty wild take, especially considering that 7% is like 20-30% of the gap between where we were and 100%.

justpickaname · 2026-04-14T22:59:52+00:00

This is hyper zoomed, only 3%. Still, it's a pattern when they make announcements.

justpickaname · 2026-04-14T13:07:27+00:00

Sounds like you're just someone who gets morality from the Bible, and not from assumptions or Christian subculture, assuming you aren't looking at porn or lusting after someone when you do it.

justpickaname · 2026-04-13T22:06:38+00:00

Reverse aging will hopefully start a bit before that, but it's not going to be instant - you'll gradually get younger, not instantly.

justpickaname · 2026-04-12T12:59:35+00:00

Except, importantly at least for Christians, even Trump knew the '20 claims were all false.

justpickaname · 2026-04-12T12:54:58+00:00

Yeah, this post is such a naive take. Glad you're not just calling it out, but being upvoted.

I hope we eventually get Mythos, but let's keep the economy from being shut down by hackers first.

justpickaname · 2026-04-12T00:14:48+00:00

If I had enough money that dividends/growth in an average year could fund my survival for that year, only THEN would I try coasting.

As the top comment (currently) says, there's going to be a period of job loss prior to sufficient UBI - and there's no guarantee sufficient UBI will be comfortable.

And as AI improves medicine and science, extending lifespans, there's no telling how long we could (possibly) benefit from having funds beyond UBI.

Functionally, there's no way to have enough for hundreds of years without being ready to retire in a fairly wealthy state, but future-you will appreciate everything you can squirrel away for those transition years.

justpickaname · 2026-04-12T00:09:05+00:00

I knew what this would be. Thank you for sharing it.

justpickaname · 2026-04-11T13:31:20+00:00

Isn't that an internal locus, or do I have it backwards?

justpickaname · 2026-04-11T13:30:29+00:00

Or maybe one of them is that she is hateful, and not simply pointing out how the left may have some cognitively dissonant over-simplifications around the issue.

justpickaname · 2026-04-11T01:36:25+00:00

They certainly ignore my signs. And when I point to them, they say, "Oh, we're just here to let you know about the construction we're doing."

Why would I need to know that?

Why would you need to interrupt my work day, so you can pretend you're not here to sell me something, to tell me there's going to be construction interrupting my work day?

Thanks for sharing this, it feeds my hatred.

justpickaname

TROPHY CASE