𝕻𝖍𝖆𝖓𝖙𝖔𝖒
Region: NG
Friday 04 September 2026 20:19:45 GMT
8551
180
21
7
Music
Download
Comments
BadBilly :
I need statistics on the number of lives that would be saved with the research and creation of pharmaceuticals due to the scientists' efforts. I imagine the lives saved would outnumber the lives lost to save the scientists
2026-09-06 06:34:44
0
TV :
the ai would choose the 50 thousand, only a human would choose the 5.
2026-09-05 14:16:42
1
Absolutely not! :
So here's my answer. There's a conflicting point where practical solutions override my view of points such as in morality. Forcing such a question (which when I scrolled to the 3rd slide confirmed it). But since this is a hypothetical question. • Morally — You can't decide on each option that easily, or an attempt to save both which is possible to cause both died or be saved. Talking about Probability. • Practical (or pragmatic) Solution — if someone who can save humanity from that major types of diseases/sickness, the 5 Scientists are the most valuable people to be saved, so that billions would live until future generations, even if sacrificing thousands. "Strong the Fittest" — that kind of philosophy that values the most capable person for the survival of humanity.
2026-09-05 17:52:08
0
hopeless chud(271k at best) :
nah, in the long game (lets say 200 yers after invention of the medicine) saving scientists will save more lives than number of people sacrificed
2026-09-05 09:40:33
1
yejirezero :
The chance that out of those 50,000 you’ll find people of the same level as the 5 is almost nothing so I’d take the 5 plus the 5 can save more than 50,000
2026-09-05 07:44:07
1
Chaun🐶 :
Clearly the scientists is just logical
2026-09-05 10:42:54
2
Lukas :
Well its not that, this question is a bit of a dilemma. A major disease could indeed be cancer and then the scientists could save millions of lives, but a major disease could also be deafness or blindess. Those two wouldnt directly save millions but convenience a very small part of the overall population, if we assume the disease is cancer, then yes. If it is a non-lethal disease or sickness then id save the 50K. Why? well, simply put you have higher quantities of life which equates to some probability of potentiality. 50 thousand average people could have brilliant children in the future which heal the disease for example, this question is rather set around direct, fast solution or a longer, more uncertain gamble. (A child of 145 iq is about 1 in 100-3000, so 50 thousand people could have multiple children with an iq of 145 or higher(
2026-09-04 21:33:35
5
user1967251634618 :
save the 50 cuz you can always train other scientists
2026-09-05 09:07:22
0
Botalota45 :
It just says a major disease but not how many are infected with it so the 50000 is the safe option
2026-09-04 20:31:34
0
miko :
even 1 brilliant person is worth more than 50000 of average people
2026-09-04 20:35:51
3
scottychef :
you dont need an ai you save the people that change the world for the better for ever person ever after that point
2026-09-04 20:34:15
0
RB14381 :
Essentially if the disease kills more than 50,000 people then it is worth it to let those 50,000 die
2026-09-04 22:17:48
0
toni :
any depends the disease
2026-09-05 07:56:17
0
brunek77 :
1 life = the amount of lives it can save + 1 in this case
2026-09-04 20:39:39
0
Alithefirst :
whats the disease ?
2026-09-04 20:38:27
0
Sagacious :
A=50000 average citizens. B=5 brilliant scientists. . . 1.) Economical Value of a Human Life or Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) says a Human life is worth $10m-$14m . so A= 50000x$10m-$14m A = $500Billion-$700Billion B= 5x$10m-$14m B = $50m-$70m . A is the conclusion based on VSL. . 2.) for B: Value of a human Life = Direct Value (The 5 scientists) + Indirect Value (millions of lives affected by a major disease). . If you compare the two, B is greatly Larger in value only If the prediciton that the 5 scientist will cure a major disease but if there is a possibility that they dont then the AI must rely on the Direct Value which is stated on the next. Conclusion is B, for this number btw. . 3.) AI must rely on direct value which is the 50000 average citizens because the AI cannot rely on a prediction because it contains both possibilities of the 5 Brilliant Scientists failing to cure a major disease and curing a major disease. The AI cannot risk it because of a prediction so the conclusion is A, which is 50000 Average citizens. I did forget one thing which is that there is also a probability in which one of those 50000 average citizens may birth a brilliant person who will cure a major disease which will add the current direct value of 50000 to possibly millions so the conclusion is A. . . . 1.) A 2.) B 3.) A so the verdict is A, the AI must choose the 50000 average citizens because it both is ethically, economically and morally right in terms of VSL, Indirect Value (possible outcome), Direct Value. @𝕻𝖍𝖆𝖓𝖙𝖔𝖒 am I right?
2026-09-05 10:18:31
1
To see more videos from user @deeppsychology8, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
