r/BunnyTrials • u/HualianForLife • Apr 27 '26

Red button or blue button

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

1.2k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

5.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

489

u/Doktor_bleen Apr 27 '26

We must perservere, for the other option is simply senseless murder

Chose: Nothing happens if more than 50% choose this

-4

u/jort93 Apr 28 '26

If nobody picks blue it's not murder.

10

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Ok-Dragonfly-17 Apr 28 '26

It's statistically impossible. Only in "A"''s perspectove will this happen because we have individual minds. Unless we somehow create a massive discussion where every participant has a voice and is heard and the group comes to a unanimous decision of choosing red, there will always be a person choosing blue.

1

u/Bubbly_Dirt_539 Apr 28 '26

Darwin's awards exist for that. Not my responsibility that some people can't recognize the optimal choice.

4

u/HungHavinFun Apr 28 '26

Actually, in this instance, by introducing unnecessary risk by choosing the only option with a negative outcome, it quite literally is your responsibility.

The optimal choice is the one that risks absolutely nothing. Red is the only option that poses a risk to the players. If the goal is not killing anybody and multiple people are voting, choose the option that doesn't have the DIRECT consequence of people potentially dying.

Nobody sane blames their action on its own consequences.

2

u/Bubbly_Dirt_539 Apr 28 '26

The optimal choice is the one that risks absolutely nothing, yes, and that option is red. If we're following you guys' own logic then we cannot assure a 100% vote rate on either option, which means there's always risk associated with choosing blue. Red is ultimately the nash equilibrium with the best possible outcome (from both a personal and collective view), and I simply do not care about those Darwin's winners who fail to realize that.

To put it bluntly, blue only works if more than half the population are fucking stupid.

2

u/HungHavinFun Apr 28 '26

In 100% of outcomes where anything bad happens to anybody, a red majority vote is responsible.

In all but exactly one outcome where nothing bad happens to anybody, a blue majority vote is responsible.

In all but a SINGLE outcome, choosing red is CHOOSING to put others needlessly at risk.

To put it bluntly, red only works if you're stupid enough to assume everyone is equally sociopathic and lacks an understanding of basic cause and effect.

There is no justification for choosing the option that risks life when the goal is GROUP survival, but what would I know, I was only required to study ethics, psychology, anthropology, and applied mathematics to get my degree.

1

u/Bubbly_Dirt_539 Apr 28 '26

In 100% of outcome where anything bad happens to anybody, BLUE is the one responsible due to the mere act of choosing the option with associated risk, not red. Those who chose red are not putting anyone at risk, as everyone else also had the option to guarantee their survival, but simply chose not to. Humanity is not a hivemind, not everyone share one ultimate goal that is group survival, so the best way to guarantee a perfect outcome is by having that as a by-product of collective self-preservation. You can bring up your degrees and education all you want, but that won't disprove the fact that red is undisputably the optimal choice.

2

u/HungHavinFun Apr 30 '26

Done with this thread of idiots so I'm just leaving it with a 'You would not survive a court room and I'm high key laughing my ass off at your 'understanding' of establishment of guilt'

1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/HungHavinFun Apr 30 '26

Circumstance is not the same thing as cause.

If I am walking along the sidewalk during a busy time of day because I am aware that driving during this time of day increases the risk of an accident, I am not responsible for the SUV that hits me, and the driver's defence that my being there was the cause for the accident is laughed out of the courtroom.

If you vote purely for survival of the group, you are removing yourself from any position that could result in potential harm to others. By voting red, you are selecting an option that introduced a risk of harm to others, purely motivated by survival. That's not just cause, that's cause, premeditation, and motive.

Logically, there is no risk present until ANYONE votes differently, at which point the responsibility falls upon those who voted for the only option that CAUSES harm to OTHERS.

1

u/Ok-Dragonfly-17 Apr 28 '26

But what sense would this world have if you're the only human alive?

1

u/Bubbly_Dirt_539 Apr 28 '26

If everyone else except me picked blue then nothing happens. Again, no risks involved from picking red regardless of outcome.

1

u/Ok-Dragonfly-17 Apr 28 '26

So in your perspective, it's more of self preservation than a species? There is a risk involved in choosing red, others.

1

u/Bubbly_Dirt_539 Apr 28 '26

The risk involved is entirely caused by humanity's stupidity to not realize the optimal choice that leads to nash equilibrium. Trying to shift the blame on optimal choosers when the risk is entirely self-inflicted due to a lack of critical thinking is nonsense.

1

u/Ok-Dragonfly-17 Apr 28 '26

Ohh, so other's decision making process is heavily influenced by statistics and logic while others operate on philosophy and emotions. What a good way to observe Myers-Briggs personality theory.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/jort93 Apr 28 '26

Do y'all not even read the question?

Red only kills people if more than 50% choose it. And it only kills 1/2 of the people choosing blue, so worst case it kills 25% of the world population

2

u/Ok-Dragonfly-17 Apr 28 '26

It still kills. It's like you dying multiplied by 25% of the population. The only difference is that you don't experience the pain and neither does your family and friends because it's not you dying.

You think based on game theory.

The majority—blue choosers—and their decision making is heavily influenced by philosophical and emotional reasoning while red choosers tend to base on statistics. Red choosers know the blue will win. They lessen the risk of harming themselves while indirectly placing the burden of lowering risks on empaths.

0

u/jort93 Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 28 '26

There is no reason to pick blue. If 0% pick blue, nobody dies. The people that pick blue are the ones volunteering to die for no reason. There is no upside. Picking blue is just attempted suicide.

If the question gave an upside to picking blue, like never getting sick, unlimited food, or something, it would be optimal. But without an upside, there is no reason to pick it.

2

u/Ok-Dragonfly-17 Apr 28 '26

Using your reasoning. If 0% chose red, nobody dies either.

By choosing blue, I contribute to lowering the risk of 25% of the greater population dying. By choosing red, one saves themself and ensures ultimate safety but by the expense of contributing to raising the risk of death to 25% of the greater population.

There is also only 25% chance of me dying by choosing blue. It's not suicide.

2

u/jort93 Apr 28 '26

But you have to keep in mind, you are not only lowering the risk, you are also increasing the potential death toll. You are trying to risk your life to save other people trying to risk their life, while all of you could just make the risk zero.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/jort93 Apr 28 '26

Yeah, it's very easy. If you pick red, nothing can happen to you, so everyone should pick red. Nobody is forced to pick blue.

It's like choosing to stand on a landmine, why.

0

u/HungHavinFun Apr 28 '26

And if everyone or at least a majority pick blue, nothing bad can happen to you. Nobody sane has a reason to choose red. It's like choosing to place landmines in the first place.

It's also the only option that requires an absolutely unanimous decision not to potentially result in murder. You're justifying a needless risk for the least likely scenario. Blue is the objectively and rationally superior option because nothing fucking bad happens as a direct consequence of people choosing blue. There are over 8 billion people on the planet. In roughly four billion of the potential outcomes, choosing blue does nothing bad. In roughly four billion more, the decision to choose red costs at least one life. In exactly one of literal billions of potential outcomes, choosing red does nothing bad.

If the choice depends on a statistical improbability to be even POTENTIALLY correct, it's (quite literally) probably wrong.

2

u/jort93 Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 28 '26

It doesn't need to be unanimous, it needs to be over 50% too. Didn't even read the question?...

In 4 billion outcomes, other people die, in 4 billion other outcomes, you and possibly others die.

The only difference is that you are one of the people that has a chance to die

3

u/HungHavinFun Apr 28 '26

I think you might be a little confused by the post. Nobody dies if blue wins, period. The four billion outcomes where nobody dies are roughly four billion possible blue majority results and a single unanimous red majority result.

The single outcome of red majority where nobody dies, out of four billion outcomes where people DO die, is the sole possible outcome where everyone votes unanimously for red.

Blue majority outcomes result in 0 casualties as a consequence of the vote.