It's fairly entertaining but you really have to suspend disbelief. I'd call it fantasy with some sci-fi jargon more than actual sci-fi. I guess I could say overall plot doesn't make a lot of sense but scenery on the way isn't too hard on the eyes.
Just curious, to you speak Mandarin?
As for me, it would have to be a number of people that, by their sudden absence, manifestly affects the life of people I do know and care about. Like, at least a billion or so if randomly chosen
If they ask someone else, you'd better hope that other person doesn't think like you - for your sake and the sake of people you care about.
I hope you're just looking for interesting responses rather than a definite answer!
I genuinely wonder if saving a negative number of people would be better overall. Humans, especially ones in developed countries like those privileged enough to be posting about stuff like this are responsible for a lot of negative effects we don't really like to think about. We benefit from exploiting other people, animals, using resources in unsustainable ways.
I think even if someone takes a lot of individual steps like going vegan, trying to recycle, minimizing transportation and other consumption, not having children, etc that they're still not even going to break even with the harmful effects just existing causes.
If it wasn't for effects like that I'd probably say 2-3 but in reality I'm not really sure if I truly should save anyone. (By the way, you don't have to worry about me going out and murdering people.)
A lot of people don't understand the limitations/weaknesses of AI. The carelessness was probably more in not actually learning about the tool he was relying on (and just assuming it was reliable information).
I would just leave the "From a utilitarian perspective" part out. The rest of what you wrote seemed to describe your position adequate.
So is the question how many it would take for me to believe that I should give my life, or how many before I'd actually have the willpower to choose to die?
From a utilitarian perspective, if it helps people I’m invested in then the number would be low. But if it helps people who have no connection with my life whatsoever, then the number would be close to infinity.
This is basically the exact opposite of utilitarianism. The utilitarian perspective would be to look at it in an objective way and determine what choice, overall, lead to the highest utility. Your decision is completely subjective.
Sadly many people who own dogs fall into that category.
I think we can just say "many people fall into that category".
we aren’t breaking the event horizon threshold as title suggests
It wouldn't be pop-sci if it didn't have a misleading clickbait title!
Then my awkward ass is sitting there knowing I need to say “I’m good. How are you?”
You don't have to say that.
In the context of random people who don't know each other, it basically just means "I acknowledge your existence". Acknowledge their existence and you're good.
Sounds like you have a problem with extremely irresponsible people who happen to have dogs.
Ah, I see. I was going to recommend you a link to the audiobooks that I found.
It was on Amazon Prime's streaming service for a while so there should be official subs at least floating around.