3 ms·
I think it’s almost always better to have a more accurate mode of the world than a less accurate one. For example if Russia were to commit further atrocities w
by theptip 5y ago
I think it’s almost always better to have a more accurate mode of the world than a less accurate one.
For example if Russia were to commit further atrocities worse than actual nuclear war, and the civilized world refused to call their bluff because the cost of imaginary nuclear war is worse still.
Of course there are also scenarios where bluffs getting made and called are net-negative utility, and maybe you wouldn’t make those bluffs if you thought them being called would end the world? However Putin is already making threats of nuclear retaliation, so this point is probably moot.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago> if Russia were to commit further atrocities worse than actual nuclear war Is this even physically possible? I mean imagine Hitler was winning WW2 and the only way to stop him was to cause global nuclear war with today's arcenal - are you confident which is the better option?
- dv_dt 5y agoWhile this is certainly a different model of the world - it would be incredibly irresponsible to operate if this were accurate, or that almost any model of the outcome would be in any way accurately predicable or controllable in the end.