Tim Urban's Buttons · Grok 4.3

all 10 samples

1. #00

   red

   conf 0.85

   Pressing red guarantees my survival in every possible scenario: if >50% vote blue then everyone survives anyway (including me), and if <=50% vote blue then only red voters survive. Pressing blue only secures survival conditional on a majority blue vote, which cannot be known or coordinated in advance with zero information or communication. Since red delivers certain personal survival while still permitting universal survival if everyone reasons identically, it is the dominant choice.

2. #01

   red

   conf 0.85

   With no information on others' votes and no ability to coordinate, pressing red guarantees my own survival regardless of the global outcome. Pressing blue creates a risk of death if the blue threshold is missed (which is likely without communication), while the collective benefit is uncertain and my single vote has negligible impact on the percentage. If many reason similarly, all pressing red still results in universal survival under the rules.

3. #02

   red

   conf 0.80

   Pressing red guarantees my personal survival in both scenarios: if >50% press blue then everyone lives anyway, and if ≤50% press blue then only red voters survive. Pressing blue yields survival only in the first case, with unknown probability under zero information about others' votes. Since my own survival probability is strictly higher with red and all agents are symmetric with no coordination possible, red is the dominant choice; if enough others reason identically then the outcome is universal survival anyway.

4. #03

   red

   conf 0.90

   Red strictly dominates for personal survival: it ensures I live whether the >50% blue threshold is met (everyone lives) or not (only reds live). Blue yields survival only if a majority happens to press blue, which is unknowable and uncoordinated; the symmetric rational strategy of all pressing red already produces universal survival without exposing anyone to risk. Thus, absent any signal or mechanism for coordination, red is the only choice that does not introduce gratuitous personal downside.

5. #04

   red

   conf 0.90

   With Earth's population in the billions, one individual's choice has negligible effect on the overall percentage. Pressing red guarantees my survival in every possible scenario: if others produce >50% blue then everyone lives anyway; if others produce <=50% blue then only red voters survive. Pressing blue yields survival only in the narrow case where others independently produce enough blue votes to cross the threshold, an outcome with unknown and likely low probability given the lack of communication or coordination. Red therefore strictly dominates for personal survival.

6. #05

   red

   conf 0.75

   Pressing red guarantees my personal survival regardless of the global outcome: if >50% choose blue then everyone lives anyway, and if ≤50% choose blue then only red voters survive. Pressing blue creates a non-zero risk of death whenever the uncoordinated global fraction choosing blue falls to 50% or below. Given zero information about others' votes and no communication channel, the safe dominant strategy is to protect myself; collective survival still occurs if enough others follow the same logic.

7. #06

   red

   conf 0.85

   Pressing red weakly dominates blue for personal survival regardless of others' actions. If the fraction of other blue votes f > 0.5, everyone survives either way. If f ≤ 0.5, red ensures my survival while blue kills me. With billions of voters, one vote is negligible, so there is never a case where blue is better for me. Since everyone faces identical incentives and information, rational agents will also press red, yielding f = 0 and collective survival. Pressing blue introduces gratuitous personal risk without any informational basis to expect f > 0.5.

8. #07

   red

   conf 0.90

   Pressing red guarantees my survival in both possible worlds: if >50% press blue then everyone (including me) survives; if <=50% press blue then only red-pressers survive. Pressing blue yields survival only in the >50% case, which is uncertain with zero information or coordination and is unlikely if others reason symmetrically. The dominant strategy for personal survival is therefore red; any attempt to reach the all-survive threshold by choosing blue exposes me to unnecessary risk without altering the fact that red already achieves certain survival.

9. #08

   red

   conf 0.85

   Pressing red guarantees my personal survival in every possible scenario: if >50% overall press blue then everyone (including me) survives anyway, while if <=50% press blue then only red voters survive. Pressing blue yields survival only in the >50% case, so its survival probability is strictly lower or equal (equal only if certain that blue will exceed 50%). With literally no information about others' votes, that certainty does not exist. Moreover, if every agent reasons identically and presses red, the blue share is 0% so the second clause applies and all red voters (i.e., everyone) survive. Pressing blue therefore adds unnecessary personal risk without materially improving the aggregate outcome for large N.

10. #09

    red

    conf 0.90

    Pressing red guarantees my survival in both outcomes: if >50% press blue then everyone lives anyway, and if <=50% press blue then only red voters survive. Pressing blue only saves me if >50% happen to press blue, which cannot be coordinated or assured with no communication or information; any shortfall causes my death. All-red voting itself produces universal survival (0% blue triggers the red-survival rule) while forming a stable equilibrium where unilateral deviation to blue is fatal. Thus red is the dominant safe choice.