= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanielLC comments on [SEQ RERUN] Bayesians vs. Barbarians - 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 (11)
It's assuming they're all egoists. If you're not an egoist, you wouldn't need a complex solution to sacrifice the few to save the many.
I might be misunderstanding what you wrote, and if I have please correct me. You seem to be saying more than one egoist is needed for egoism to happen. This is not the case.
I think I might be misunderstanding what you wrote.
I thought you were saying that Eliezer was assuming that the people were not egoists, and if they were, it would all fall apart. I was replying that if they weren't egoists, none of this would be necessary, and it's intended to show that even egoists can work together if that's what it takes to win.
It's also possible that just some of them are egoists. If it's enough of them, you'd still have to do that stuff Eliezer mentioned.