= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Nebu comments on A brief history of ethically concerned scientists - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (150)
What's the difference between "Survival" and "having at least one survivor"?
The way I see it:
We're assuming a conflict is about to happen, I guess, or else the hypothetical scenario is boring and there are no important choices for me to make.
The question is not "Do I elect a crazy leader or a non-crazy leader?", but rather, "Do I elect a leader that's believes 'all's fair in love and war?' or a leader that believes in 'always keep your word and die with honor'?"
I.e. if you think "ethical vs unethical" means "will retaliate-but-not-initiate vs will not retaliate-but-not-intiiate", then it's no wonder why we're having communication problems.
"Having at least one survivor" means that humanity exists at the end of the game. "Surviving" means that your country exists at the end of the game.
I sidestepped 'ethical' entirely in favor of 'practical'. I also had to address this question in a manner not nearly as hypothetical or low-stakes as this.
Okay, thanks.
So it sounds to me like this is not iterated prisoner's dilemma, because if my country gets nuked, I do not get to elect another military leader for the next round.
... Political leader. No nation with nukes currently elects military leaders.