this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
609 points (96.1% liked)

Programmer Humor

19497 readers
1213 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 33 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If we all collectively agree to just pass it on, then either:

  • It's infinite, and it just passes on forever, or...

  • It's not infinite and somebody at the end has no choice, in which case nobody in charge of a lever has killed anyone

So yeah, I say pass it on.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Except that somewhere down that chain someone is almost certainly going to choose to kill people, so by passing the trolley on down to them you're responsible for killing a lot more than if you ended it right now.

And since every rational person down the line is going to think that, they'll all be itching to pull the "kill" lever first chance they get. So you know that you need to pull the kill lever immediately to minimize the number of deaths.

[–] Droechai@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Only the person pulling the lever is responsible for his/her action though. There is a difference between passively passing on and actively murder someone

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dentological ethics: you have a duty to not murder people, so you don't pull the lever

Utilitarian ethics: pulling the lever will kill less people

[–] Droechai@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In this case it isn't even a guarantee that anyone has to die as the problem is presented, the tram can just continue to be passed along. The default setting for the lever is "go to next" so to not pull the lever is easier both physically and morally.

The individual that pulls the lever is the same individual that would take action to harm others for no benefit, and even in real life I can't morally take responsibility for a person who runs over a child by purpose after I let his/her car merge in front of me just before a school crossing

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

I guess then the issue would be: do you ever find out the result of your actions? If no, then I guess it's sort of a "glass half empty/full" kind of thing, because you could just pass it on and assume the best and just go live your life quite happily.

Although if you did find out the result, imagine being first, pulling the lever and then finding out nobody else would have.

If it's infinite, you'd basically be gambling that no evil person exists.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] uphillbothways@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Step in front of the train: Tell your manager this whole project is dumb, provide a list of reasons why it's a bad idea and explain you are prepared to resign rather than enable its further development.

[–] kronkadoops@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago

Someone needs to stop tying people to those train tracks or this trolley problem will never go away.

[–] corytheboyd@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

MULTI-TRACK DRIFTING!! Which also kills the other lever guy, bonus!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just keep doubling forever until the number is more than everyone alive, free s-risk emergency button.

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This might cause a buffer overload that crashes the programming and we can escape the matrix together once and for all

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Napkin math, from the last time I saw this:

I’ve been thinking about this. I estimate a few people per 1000 would do an atrocity for no reason if they were guaranteed no consequences, and the deaths if the switch is pulled are 2^(n-1) for the nth switch. The expected deaths will cross 1 somewhere in the high single-digits, then (since it’s outcome*chance), so the death minimising strategy is actually to pull yours if the chain is at least that long.

Edit: This assumes the length of the chain is variable but finite, and the trolley stops afterwards. If it's infinite obviously you pull the switch.

[–] tomi000@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Could you elaborate what you are analysing here? If I dont misinterpret the model, the option where you dont double the victims minimizes deaths every time.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Ah, but then you're giving the opportunity to the next guy to kill even more, if he wants. Most people obviously won't want to do that, but a rare few will, and the body count gets so big so fast that it only takes a few switches before that's a bad risk.

I was expecting a bigger number of switches, but I guess that's just another example of humans being bad at tracking the consequences of large quantities.

[–] archiotterpup@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I think you're on the right track.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TheObserver@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 year ago

Double it and I'll do it myself

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Half-pull the lever so that the points get stuck midway between the two tracks. That should derail the trolley. Someone could conceivably still get hurt, but it improves everyone's chances.

(What? You mean it isn't a literal trolley that has to obey the laws of physics? Damn.)

[–] cicadagen@ani.social 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

News next day, 10 dead in derailment.

[–] EmoDuck@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Ten baby puppies to be exact

[–] explodicle@local106.com 6 points 1 year ago

Philosophy problems vs all real world problems

[–] statues_lasers@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Modern financial system in one picture.

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There is one person in danger.

Now I pull the lever.

Now there are two _______

[–] blujan@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cloudy1999@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If we keep doubling, will I eventually be a person on the tracks? There are a finite number of people, so eventually I would be, right? So, passing the buck would be equivalent to handing my fate to a stranger.

OTOH, if there are an infinite number of people, then this thought experiment is creating people out of thin air. Do these imaginary people's rhetorical lives even matter?

Either way, it seems better to kill 1 person at the start.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Creddit@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just walk away and assume the original engineer put safety measures in place.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you pull the lever after the trolley's first set of wheels has passed the switch but before its last set of wheels has passed the switch then you'll derail the trolley and everyone lives.

[–] imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Except the guy in the trolley

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

He should have been wearing his seatbelt. That's on him.

Also, why wasn't he pulling the emergency brake? He deserves it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CannotSleep420@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 year ago

What is the base case for this?

[–] Tschuuuls@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] metrolw@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Choosing the second option will trap an infinite people for eternity in this problem, because it would never stop

[–] Occupier8633@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

You should only be released once someone decides to let all of their track people die.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Oh I promise you it'll stop, just with a greater death toll. It probably wouldn't take that long to stop either.

[–] damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Damn. That’s the politician way of thinking!!!

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

THE MORE THE MERRIER!!!

„I pull this lever and suddenly it’s not my problem anymore“

[–] over_clox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Depends on how much I'm getting paid..

[–] janus2@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

"hey hun i've got an exciting business opportunity for you!!1!"

[–] hectocotylus@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

por qué no los dos

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

The main problem with this is: is there a finite number of people? and if I pass it on do I count as part of the pool that will end up on the tracks?

[–] lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago

I don't have to be a soldier on anyone's ethical recursion war, so since the default position is set to kill 1 person, that gets done by the problem itself and the whole thing is solved without me having to do anything.

As a further bonus, now the lever people on the next branches are free to get out of the levels and go release the other prisoners.

load more comments
view more: next ›