Then the optimal thing to do is to just coordinate with the other person and have one person pull the lever and one person not pull the lever. The point of the prisoner's dillema is that it's always "better" to "betray" the other person, but it's going to be worse for everyone if everyone acts in a self interested manner.
Isn't it better to coordinate with the other person in prisoner's dilemma too? I guess it needs the sides to be personally invested in the outcome for them to not do that and that's why the it says loved ones, but then that on its own is also a dilemma that overpowers the two other and ends up feeling less like a hard choice and more like a joker scheme. Idk how to fix it tbh
Another way to look at it is like a device that you and I sit on opposite sides of.
If I put in a coin, you get three coins. If you put in a coin, I get three coins.
Putting in a coin strictly hurts the actor putting the coin in. Playing it "optimally", there's no reason to ever put in a coin. Even though we could easily both walk away two coins richer, if we are "purely rational, self interested actors", we'll both walk away with nothing.
Technically, this scenario is flawed because "betraying" the other person makes the scenario worse for everyone if the other person also "betrays". A true prisoner's dilemma is supposed to be pretty clear cut "always right to betray", meanwhile in this a selfish actor would have reason not to pull the lever as to avoid losing the people on their trolley.
Then the optimal thing to do is to just coordinate with the other person and have one person pull the lever and one person not pull the lever. The point of the prisoner's dillema is that it's always "better" to "betray" the other person, but it's going to be worse for everyone if everyone acts in a self interested manner.
Isn't it better to coordinate with the other person in prisoner's dilemma too? I guess it needs the sides to be personally invested in the outcome for them to not do that and that's why the it says loved ones, but then that on its own is also a dilemma that overpowers the two other and ends up feeling less like a hard choice and more like a joker scheme. Idk how to fix it tbh
Yeah it is basically a joker scheme.
Another way to look at it is like a device that you and I sit on opposite sides of.
If I put in a coin, you get three coins. If you put in a coin, I get three coins.
Putting in a coin strictly hurts the actor putting the coin in. Playing it "optimally", there's no reason to ever put in a coin. Even though we could easily both walk away two coins richer, if we are "purely rational, self interested actors", we'll both walk away with nothing.
Technically, this scenario is flawed because "betraying" the other person makes the scenario worse for everyone if the other person also "betrays". A true prisoner's dilemma is supposed to be pretty clear cut "always right to betray", meanwhile in this a selfish actor would have reason not to pull the lever as to avoid losing the people on their trolley.